(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 request is for Proposed Standard. The type of RFC is indicated
in the title page header. This is the appropriate status because the
document has normative requirements for conforming WebRTC
(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:
In situations where packet loss is high or perfect media quality is
essential, Forward Error Correction (FEC) can be used to proactively
recover from packet losses. This specification provides guidance on
which FEC mechanisms to use, and how to use them, for WebRTC
Working Group Summary
The working group support for the document was generally high. One
issued was raised in working group last call regarding the
effectiveness of the Opus internal FEC mechanism. The document
currently states that it is RECOMMENDED for protection against
individual packet loss and that other methods are needed for
multi-packet protection. This mirrors text in RFC 6716 and
accurately captures a limitation of the in-band FEC mechanism. The
question of effectiveness is thus tightly tied to the loss pattern.
While data on this was presented, there was no evident consensus to
update the requirement, so the recommendation from RFC 6716 was
This document appears to have the support of the relevant development community
and will likely be implemented and deployed. Reviews by Mo Zanaty, Magnus Westerlund,
and Bernard Aboba were particularly helpful.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Ted Hardie is the Document Shepherd. Adam Roach is the Responsible
(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 document shepherd reviewed the current draft and the set of
issues, requesting updates for those which had not yet been addressed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
The reviews which took place appear to have been the appropriate reviews.
(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
(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.
The author has confirmed that no IPR disclosures are required.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures have been filed.
(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?
It is a strong consensus among those engaged in this topic; as it stands, the
working groups interests are broad, and some are not following this issue
closely. None of those seem likely, however, to raise late objections.
(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 does that level of discontent seem likely.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
These are the identified nits:
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
== The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but
does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list.
-- The document date (December 10, 2017) is 25 days in the past. Is this
The date issues are because the document was last updated in December
of 2017 and we are now in January of 2018. I do not believe that the
"NOT RECOMMENDED" nit needs to be addressed prior to publication
because "RECOMMENDED" is list and defined.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There are no related formal review requirements.
(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 completion?
Yes, there is one document, draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme, which
has not yet been published. It is progressing in the PAYLOAD working group,
and this draft will need to await its publication to be published. At the
time of this write-up, the draft was in working group last call. There is
some feedback there from implementors which may require minor clarifications,
but these do not seem likely to impact this draft's references.
(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 is a normative reference to IMS, and it may require an explicit
call out in the Last Call, since this version (September 2017) may not
have been previously addressed.
(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 will not change that 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 makes no requests of IANA.
(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 makes no requests of IANA.
(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 has no sections in a formal grammar.