# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents: draft-ietf-cellar-tags-18
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
## Document History
1. 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 small (6-8 active participants), and the authors are the most active
contributors, but the entire active working group was involved in reaching
consensus for this document.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No. This working group is quite calm, and work on draft-ietf-cellar-tags was no
exception.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
No.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document?
Yes. Notable implementations include vlc, ffmpeg, mkvtoolnix, mediainfo.
## Additional Reviews
5. 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 participate in this IETF WG.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document does not contain any MIB, YANG module, new media type, or URI type.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?
This document does not contain any YANG modules.
8. 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.
N/A
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. 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. The document shepherd did a full top-to-bottom review of
draft-ietf-cellar-tags-15 which resulted in some significant technical changes,
but these changes involved
- tightening BCP 14 language
- providing context for SHOULDs that provide direction for new media containers
while not invalidating existing containers - Matroska is intended for use in
archival media storage, so allowing conformant implementations to process these
containers is critical
- providing explanations for concepts that the working group understands very
well, but new implementers might not understand
10.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?
No issues with common issues have been identified for this document - the
document content is application-level, and provides additional capabilities for
"Matroska Media Container Format Specification", RFC 9559, so no additional
issues with common issues are expected here.
11. 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 appropriate for this document. It provides additional
capabilities for "Matroska Media Container Format Specification", RFC 9559,
which is also published as Proposed Standard.
12. 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.
Yes. Document authors have been surveyed. All have confirmed in email that no
disclosures have been made, and no disclosures are expected..
13. 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.
Yes. Document authors have agreed. There are three authors.
14.Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
Beyond the Content Guidelines, idnits 2.17.1 identifies possible downrefs, but
please see below. :
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
The Normative references really are normative. The Informative references are
really informative.
We use a format SIMILAR TO the profile for [ISO8601] International Organization
for Standardization, "Date and time — Representations for information
interchange — Part 1: Basic rules", ISO 8601-1:2019, February 2019,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/70907.html> as defined in [RFC3339], but the
format is defined in the current draft.
16.List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
ref. 'GS1' is freely available.
ref. 'IEEE.754' is available for purchase.
ref. 'IMDb' is freely available.
ref. 'ISBN' is freely available
ref. 'ISO4217' is freely available
ref. 'ISRC' is freely available
ref. 'LCCN' is freely available.
ref. 'MovieDB' is freely available.
ref. 'ReplayGain' is freely available.
ref. 'TheTVDB' is freely available.
17. 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.
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'GS1'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE.754'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IMDb'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISBN'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO4217'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISRC'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'LCCN'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'MovieDB'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ReplayGain'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'TheTVDB'
18. 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?
No.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
No.
20. 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.
21. 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.
This document creates a new registry called the "Matroska Tag Names" registry.
The new registry uses the "Specification Required" policy [RFC8126].
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/