Shepherd writeup
rfc8761-10

(1) What type of RFC is being requested?

This document is Informational, as it specifies the requirements for an internet video codec.

(2) The IESG approval Document Announcement Write-Up:

Technical Summary

This document specifies the requirements for a video codec designed mainly for use over the internet, encompassing a wide range of interactive and non-interactive applications. Evaluation methodology is also specified for quantitative requirements such as compression efficiency.

Working Group Summary

There is broad working group consensus on the document contents, with no notable exceptions. The working group deliberated on whether to publish this as an RFC or keep as a living document during codec candidate development. The deciding factors were the requirements had become stable, and other consortiums (Alliance for Open Media) were also using this document for their codec development activities.

Document Quality

There have been several reviews of this document from several working group participants, as well as external review from other consortiums (Alliance for Open Media). Andrey Norkin, who also participates in AOM, became a co-author to maintain alignment between working group review and external (AOM) review. The first WGLC had extensive review comments, resulting in Andrey becoming a co-author. The last WGLC had no comments, as the document is mature and stable.

Personnel

Mo Zanaty is the Document Shepherd.
Adam Roach is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Document Shepherd Review

The Document Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document and prior versions. Shepherd feedback on prior versions has been addressed sufficiently in this latest version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns about the level of reviews, which have been sufficient to ensure quality.

(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 particular or broader IETF review is needed. External review (AOM) was needed to ensure alignment with similar external activities (AV1 codec development).

(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 specific concerns or issues with this document.

(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.

Each author confirmed to the Document Shepherd that they are not aware of any IPR requiring disclosure per BCP 78 and BCP 79.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference any version of this document or prior documents it replaces.

(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?   

Strong broad consensus with no notable exceptions.

(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 discontent has been expressed.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

1 ID nit found, Appendix A. title extends to column 75 not 72.
This will be fixed with the update after AD/IESG review.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Although this document is Informational, it includes both normative and informative references.

(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?

No normative references to any draft.

(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. 

No downward normative references.

(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 status change of existing RFCs.

(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 considerations.

(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 new IANA registries.

(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 formal language text.
Back