Shepherd writeup
rfc7574-12

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? 

RFC Type: Proposed Standard.
This is a protocol specification document. RFC type is indicated in the title page header.

(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. 

The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) is a protocol for disseminating the same content to a group of interested parties in a streaming fashion. PPSPP supports streaming of both pre-recorded (on-demand) and live audio/video content. It is based on the peer-to-peer paradigm, where clients consuming the content are put on equal footing with the servers initially providing the content, to create a system where everyone can potentially provide upload bandwidth. It has been designed to provide short time-till-playback for the end user, and to prevent disruption of the streams by malicious peers. PPSPP has also been designed to be flexible and extensible. It can use different mechanisms to optimize peer uploading, prevent freeriding, and work with different peer discovery schemes (centralized trackers or Distributed Hash Tables). It supports multiple methods for content integrity protection and chunk addressing. Designed as a generic protocol that can run on top of various transport protocols, it currently runs on top of UDP suing LEDBAT for congestion control.

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? 

There were several issues raised during WGLC; however, none were particularly rough and authors came up with the text that resolves these issues thus consensus was achieved in all cases. After that, some technical comments were made during the AD review and all were addressed with consensus.

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? 

This draft has some implementations and evaluations in the lab. It is expected that with the approval of this document the number of implementations will increase. During the WGLC, this draft has been deep reviewed by Riccardo Bernardini and Yunfei Zhang. The issues of protocol versioning and guideline absence on when to declare a peer dead are addressed.  The AD found some high level issues which have been already solved. One issue is that PPSPP as a Standards Track protocol cannot normatively rely on LEDBAT which is an Experimental congestion control mechanism. The problem is solved by having measurements and deployment results that show the widespread use of LEDBAT in current P2P systems and towards a DOWNREF procedure. 

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 

Document Shepherd: Rachel Huang
Responsible AD: 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. 

As the Document Shepherd, I have carefully reviewed the version 09 being forwarded to IESG. In my opinion, it accurately reflects the consensus of the working group and is 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 has been reviewed by a number of knowledgeable participants within the PPSP WG. I don’t have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the review. 

(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. 

This document has a security consideration chapter and a management consideration chapter. So particular reviews regarding security and operation complexity are required.

(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. 

There are no such issues.

(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?

As Document Shepherd, I have confirmed that the authors are not personally aware of any IPR related to this document.

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

No.

(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 as a whole understand and agree with the document.

(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 ID nits found.

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

No further formal review required except for a thorough review by IANA which will be conducted anyway.

(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.

(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.

(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). 

The IANA Considerations section is correct and adequate. It creates 6 new IANA registries which all include detailed specification of the initial content for registry. Each of these new registries has a reasonable name.

(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. 

This document creates 6 new IANA registries. Each of them should be carefully reviewed for future allocations by IANA experts.

(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 such formal language is used in this document.

Back