As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
This document is intended for Proposed Standard, as is appropriate for a
consensus protocol specification of an IETF working group. The document
indicates that it is standards track on the title page.
(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:
application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia session
via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API and
relates this signaling to the media streams and data channels which
are created and managed by the application.
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
The working group process leading up to this document was
quite long and required unusual levels of coordination with
the group producing the API and the groups responsible for the
underlying mechanisms (especially those responsible for SDP,
ICE, and RTP). During the process there were some decisions
which moved between groups in ways that made consensus
difficult to judge because the groups were not completely
congruent. As document shepherd, I believe that the issues
which remain in this document have consensus.
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 existing implementations of this protocol in two of
those most popular web browsers and in many hundreds of applications.
Those who contributed significant text and reviews are mentioned in
the acknowledgements section.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Ted Hardie is the document shepherd. Adam Roach is the responsible area
(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
This document was maintained by its authors using a Github repository and the
issues raised for the document were tracked using issues and pull requests, as
is typical for that method. I have reviewed the issues raised against the
previous versions of this document and I have confirmed that this version
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I have no serious concerns. As noted above, this document has been in
development for a significant period of time and there has been attrition in
the working group as it neared a conclusion. The two working group last calls
did, however, produce significant reviews by the working group participants who
are both familiar with the subject matter and IETF specifications. (e.g. by
Bernard Aboba and Magnus Westerlund).
(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 uses of SDP did require such review, and Paul Kyzivat and Magnus Westerlund
supplied it along with Bernard Aboba and others; some of the novel uses required
work from other groups, such as MMUSIC, and were progressed as separate
specifications there (e.g. BUNDLE).
(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
I note that there are examples in this document and in a separate
working group document as well ( draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp). This split
was decided by the working group some time ago so that SDP relevant
to non-mandatory codecs and features could be well described. The examples
were produced by overlapping teams but are nonetheless stylistically different,
and there is some potential for confusion there. The working group will
address this in the context of draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp, however, so I do not
believe this is blocking for this core specification.
An issue was raised about which version of the ICE specification was appropriate
to reference. The chairs and Area Director agreed to go forward with the
current specification and to revisit with the RFC editor during the publication
of cluster 238, as there are no dependencies in this specification on features
specific to ICEbis.
(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.
They have confirmed conformance.
(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?
The WG consensus behind this document is solid. It has been a long time in
development, so there is some exhaustion, but the continued engagement is high
enough to demonstrate that it is not simply an author 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.)
I am not aware of any appeals likely on this document.
(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
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document makes no requests of IANA and has no new URIs, media types,
YANG models, or MIBs.
(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?
This document is part of cluster 238, and I believe the IESG and the RFC editor
staff are aware of the set of documents which will emerge when it is unstuck.
(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 a total of 18 documents in the normative category which are
Internet-Drafts, but the working group is not requesting that these be
processed using the downref procedure.
(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 the status of any existing RFCs.
(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.
As noted above, the SDP constructions were checked by expert review.