(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Is this type of RFC
indicated in the title page header?
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel is targeted at the Standards track, and this
writeup is for Proposed
Standard. This is reflected on the title page and in the data tracker. Note
that there is a related
draft: draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol. I recommend that the two drafts be
sent to IETF last call
together and be considered by the IESG together.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement WriteUp.
provide such a Document Announcement WriteUp. Recent examples can be found in
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement
This document specifies the nonmedia data transport aspects of the WebRTC
framework. It provides an architectural overview of how the Stream Control
Protocol (SCTP) is used in the WebRTC context as a generic transport service.
It also contains a set of use cases and requirements.
Working Group Summary:
There was early discussion of the stacking order, but there has been no
controversy since that was fixed. There have been a number of discussion on how
particular aspects of the larger context (e.g. WebRTClevel congestion control,
manages congestion control at the association level) and this has played a part
in those, but
not in any way that made it the focus of controversy. There was a late request
for additional compatibility with the WebSockets API, which resulted in
significant additional text in section 6.4. This has been reviewed in the
working group, but additional attention to this text in AD and IESG review may
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers
special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in
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?\
There are implmentations of previous versions of this document, and we expect
them to the final version. Vendor support seems solid. This document did not
expert review of the types noted.
The document shepherd is Ted Hardie; the responsible Area Director is Richard
(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.
This document and its companion document were reread, the IPR tracker
consulted, and the
minutes of the most recent meetings (plenary and interim) reviewed. The final
changes caused by the additional of the labels were reviewed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
that have been performed?
I do not have any concerns about the working group reviews to date, nor about
conducted by SCTP folks or DTLS folks. Because of the complexity of this stack,
remain eager to solicit community review of the whole. The number of working
who actively contributed to more than one aspect of the document was low
compared to the
overall size of the group,
There have been implementations of previous versions of this specification, so
it is clear that the
whole works, but additional thought on the whole stack from new perspectives
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization?
If so, describe
the review that took place.
Security review is always welcome. Because portions of the specification rely
on work in the
SCTP working group, review of the spec from within that community has already
(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
he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
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.
As noted above, the stack appears to be a workable, but additional thinking
about the problem
space may eventually yield more elegant approaches. Real world deployment
will, I expect,
eventually guide the development of a bis. In the mean time, this should be
finished so that the
current state converges.
(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
(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 has been filed on this document, its companion document or the
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a
and agree with it?
The working group as a whole concurs with this approach.
(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 appeal has been threatened nor has extreme discomfort surfaced elsehwere..
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the InternetDrafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough.
The document was updated near the draft deadline, as were several documents on
depends; as a result, it has a number of stale references to previous versions.
There is one
reference to RFC 4347, which has been obsoleted by RFC 6347, but this is an
reference to DTLS 1.0 in preference to a reference to DTLS 1.2. The working
which version to require and preferred the early version, since it was the most
implemented. See the mailing list thread begun here:
http://www.ietf.org/mailarchive/web/rtcweb/current/msg12562.html. As noted in
the companion write-up, there is a chance that later discussion may result in a
preference for DTLS 1.2 emerging (as time marches on, it will obviously be more
prevalent). If that takes place, this adjustment will be needed. There is
also a type in the Security considerations "I should" should be "It should",
but this did not seem to be worth a re-spin.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document does not present the need for these reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
(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
There are normative references to two RTCWEB working group drafts (the security
and security- architecture documents) and to two documents the working group
(one in TSVWG: draftietf- tsvwgsctpndata and on in SCTP:
draftietftsvwgsctpdtlsencaps). The working group
documents are moving forward well and should reach the IESG shortly; those
outside the working
group have been adopted and are active work items. Until they are approved,
this document will
await their references. We are not requesting downrefs for either.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
There are no requests for downward 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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all
that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
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).
This document requests an update to an existing registry (SCTP Payload Protocol
the update is not controversial within the working group. Note, however, that
there is a change in both the registry pointers and, in some case, the name of
the entry, which may cause some further discussion.
(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
This document does not request new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF
This document does not use a formal grammar of this type.