Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents: draft-ietf-cellar-matroska-13
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

Document History
> Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The WG is very small (6-8 active participants), so there aren't a lot of
people other than the three authors.  OTH, pretty much the entire active part
of the WG was involved in the consensus for this document.

> Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the document went through with a notable absense of drame.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?


> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
> the document?

Yes.  The document represents codification of 20 years of implementation
experience.  Notable implementations include vlc, ffmpeg.

>Additional Reviews
>Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
>IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
>from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
>reviews took place.

Pretty much all the relevant people are at the IETF WG.

> Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such content as MIG or YANG is present.
A media type review occured.

> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module

No YANG module.

>Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
>final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
>BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.


Document Shepherd Checks
>Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
>document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
>to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.  Document shepherd did a full top-to-bottom review which resulted in
some significant format and text layout changes, but not technical changes.

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?


> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed standard is approriate for this document.

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Document authors have disclosed.

> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
> is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Document authors have agreed.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This was done.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

A review was done and some changes were made.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

Yes.  One ISO standard (country codes) is not available, but mostly nobody
cares to read the list.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.


> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are two reference to WG documents, which the WG is working on sorting out if they need
to be normative.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?


> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

The shepherd read it, and then suggested revisions which were incorporated.

> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.