What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document will be a
standard track RFC, the document defines a framework for a protocol to enable
devices in a telepresence conference to interoperate. The type is indicated in
the title page
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document
defines a framework for a protocol to enable devices in a telepresence
conference to interoperate. The protocol enables communication of information
about multiple media streams so a sending system and receiving system can make
reasonable decisions about transmitting, selecting and rendering the media
streams. This protocol is used in addition to SIP signaling and SDP negotiation
for setting up a telepresence session. Working Group Summary: Was there
anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy
about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough? The document was discussed in the meeting, in conferences
calls and on the mailing list. The open issues were addressed and there are no
open issues, there was consensus on the content of the document.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted? The actual protocol using the attributes
defined in the network is almost done, it is aligned with this document and
there is an implementation of the protocol. There are no specific reviews that
need to be mentioned.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Roni Even is the Document Shepherd.
The responsible AD is Alissa Cooper.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document shepherd reviewed the document in previous and current version and
found it ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? The document had good reviews before and
during the WGLC.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No need
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. The authors confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There
are IPRs
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-clue-framework
from Polycom, Huawei and Ericsson. The WG is aware and there are no concerns.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG understand the document and
agree with it.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.) No
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
No issues
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No need for formal review
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents
that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If
such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There
are normative references to CLUE WG documents that are almost ready and that
had good reviews in the WG. (15) Are there downward normative references
references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the
Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are none (16) Will publication
of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed
on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction,
explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of
this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) Describe the
Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with
regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all
protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate
reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries
have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries
include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable
name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). No IANA action
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No IANA action (19)
Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to
validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No need