(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?
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol is targeted at the Standards track, and this
write-up 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-channel. 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 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 non-media data transport aspects of the WebRTC
framework. It provides an architectural overview of how the Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is used in the WebRTC context as a generic
transport service.
Working Group Summary:
There was early discussion of the stacking order, but there has been no
significant controversy since that was fixed. There have been a number of
discussion on how to manage particular aspects of the larger context (e.g.
WebRTC-level congestion control, since SCTP manages congestion control at the
association level) and this has played a part in those, but not in any way that
mde it the focus of controversy. Requests for generality resulted in some text
changes which removed the presumption that all use cases would be
driven by RTCWEB and the creation of an IANA registry entitled
"Data Channel Establishment Protocol"
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?
There are implmentations of previous versions of this document, and we expect
updates to them to the final version. Vendor support seems solid. This
document did not require expert review of the types noted.
Personnel:
The document shepherd is Ted Hardie; the responsible Area Director is Richard
Barnes.
(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 re-read, the IPR tracker
consulted, and the minutes of the most recent meetings (plenary and interim)
reviewed. Some changes were requested by the working group after the initial
shepherd review, and those have been reviewed in the new versions.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
I do not have any concerns about the working group reviews to date, nor about
the reviews conducted by SCTP folks or DTLS folks. Because of the complexity
of this stack, however, I remain eager to solicit community review of the
whole. The number of working group participants 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 would valuable.
(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.
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 taken place.
(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.
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 why?
Yes
(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
antecedent drafts.
(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 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 Internet-Drafts 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
which it 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 intentional reference to DTLS 1.0 in preference to a
reference to DTLS 1.2. The working group discussed which version to require
and preferred the early version, since it was the most widely implemented. See
the mailing list thread begun here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg12562.html There is ongoing
discussion in the working group of this point, and it is possible that later documents
to progress (e.g. the Security Architecture drafts) will adjust this. If so, this would be
corrected during later processing.
(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?
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?
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: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata and on in SCTP:
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps). 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,
list these 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
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).
This document requests an update to an existing registry (SCTP Payload Protocol
Identifiers); the update is not controversial within the working group. It introduces
a new registry, as noted above.
(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.
Data Channel Establishment Protocol, but this is RFC required action, as
defined in [RFC5226].
(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.
This document does not use a formal grammar of this type.