Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

# Document Shepherd Writeup

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
   few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There seems general, but not overwhelming, consensus from the working group
that an informational document describing the ways the congestion control
feedback can be sent can provide useful guidance for developers.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

No, there has been no controversy or disagreement around the document.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
   so, please summarize 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, no one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
   the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
   plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
   either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere

N/A, it is not a protocol document.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
   organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

During its development, the document was presented to and reviewed by members
of the avtcore wg, in addition to the members of the rmcat wg. No need for
additional review from other IETF working groups or external organizations has
been identified.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
   such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A. The content of the document does not relate to any formal review criteria.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
   been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
   formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
   the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
   comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
   in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A. The document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
   final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
   BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A. The document does not use formal language.

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
   document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
   to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The document shepherd has performed a detailed review of the text in the
document and also checked part of the calculations presented in the document.
The document shepherd believes that the document is useful, correct and
generally well written. The smaller issues found during shepherd review relate
to the presentation only, no technical issues were found. The documents is
forwarded in its current version, as the editorial issues detected during
shepherd review can be resolved along with any comments from the AD review.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

No, no such issues remain.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The RFC is requested as Informational. This is the proper type, as the document
does not provide a protocol specification, but rather information that can help
protocol implementers. More specifically, it provides information on the types
of congestion control feedback that can be used with the RTP Control Protocol
when implementing congestion control for unicast multimedia applications. The
Datatracker correctly indicate the document as informational.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant

The author has confirmed that he does not know of any IPR relating to this

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.


14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

Informational references to other drafts should be updated to the latest
version before publication. No other ID nits were identified.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No, all references are correctly indicated as informative.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative

The document does not contain any normative references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No, the document does not contain any downward normative references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No, the document does not contain any normative references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, publication of this document does not change the status of any existing

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

As indicated in the IANA considerations section, the document does not involve
any IANA actions.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A. The document does not involve any IANA actions.