An Architectural Framework for Media Server Control
draft-ietf-mediactrl-architecture-04

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Spencer Dawkins (MEDIACTRL Co-chair) is document shepherd, has personally
reviewed this version of the document, and believes it is ready to forward
to the IESG for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This draft (and previous versions of the draft) have been well-discussed by
key WG members on the MEDIACTRL mailing list.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

The document shepherd expects that various Area Review Teams would review
this document, but no additional review is required.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

The document shepherd is not aware of specific concerns or issues with this
document.

The document shepherd does not believe any IPR disclosures are applicable to
this architecture draft.

(1.e) 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?

This draft was originally developed by a design team, but this draft has
also been also been discussed by the working group on the mailing list. The
WGLC for version 00 was very quiet on the mailing list, and discussion of
this draft at the IETF 70 MEDIACTRL meeting did not raise issues.

Recent work on this draft has focused on security considerations (early
versions of the draft had minimal text), in concert with discussions about
security requirements in the mediactrl requirements draft (previously
published as RFC 5167).

The shepherd believes there is WG consensus behind this document.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

None that the shepherd is aware of.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Automated checking (idnits idnits 2.08.05) finds one warning, but it's
spurious ([ACCEPTED] looks like a reference, but it's not)

== Missing Reference: 'ACCEPTED' is mentioned on line 837, but not defined

From ID-Checklist Revision 1.7, no nits found.

There are no additional formal review criteria that are applicable to this
document.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has split references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There are no IANA actions required for this architecture draft.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

No sections of this architecture draft are written in a formal language.

(1.k) 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 specifies an architecture for a media server control protocol
(MCP) that enables an application server to control a media server. It
addresses aspects of announcements, interactive voice response (IVR), and
conferencing media services.

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?

Most of the text in this draft has been stable for a long time. The shepherd
doesn't think consensus on this draft is rough.

Document Quality
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?

Jon Peterson reviewed this draft for the IESG.