As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) 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 describes protocol specification. So it is Proposed Standard, as
indicated in the front 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 specifies the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol Tracker Protocol
(PPSP-TP), an application-layer control (signaling) protocol for the exchange
of meta information between trackers and peers. The specification outlines the
architecture of the protocol and its functionality, and describes message
flows, message processing instructions, message formats, formal syntax and
semantics. The PPSP-TP enables cooperating peers to form content streaming
overlay networks to support near real-time Structured Media content delivery
(audio, video, associated timed text and metadata).
Working Group Summary
There was debate on the encoding of the protocol messages, particularly on
text-based versus binary-based. Rough consensus was finally made that using
text-based encoding as mandatory encoding scheme.
Document Quality
There is at least one implementation of PPSP-TP, as described in another PPSP
Usage I-D. The document itself should have good quality, based on several
rounds of expertise review conducted within PPSP group.
Personnel
Document shepherd is Ning Zong. Responsible AD is Martin Stiemerling
(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 should be ready for publication, after several rounds of expertise
review conducted within PPSP group.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concern.
(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.
Some JSON encoding examples may need broader review from JSON experts.
(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 concern.
(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.
No IPR disclosure yet.
(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 disclosure yet.
(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?
WG consensus represents a strong agreement among a few individuals.
(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.
Checked, and no error found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such review required.
(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?
No such normative reference.
(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 such normative reference.
(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 change to 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).
New registry for media type in HTTP/1.1 header is proposed, as part of PPSP-TP
encoding scheme.
(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.
(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.