(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?
Proposed Standards is the current request. The WG believes this is the appropriate type of RFC because of the 2119 implementation requirements such as MUST implement rtcweb-transports, REQUIRED support for SRTP, etc. There are not a lot of them, but enough to warrant PS.
Also note that it's been proposed as PS since Harald's initial personal submission in '11 so there has certainly been plenty of time for those that thought this was targeted at the wrong "type" to point this out to the WG.
(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:
As its name implies, this document provides and overview and context for a protocol suite that enables real-time applications that can be deployed in browsers - "real time communication on the Web".
This document is an Applicability Statement - it does not itself specify any protocol, but specifies which other specifications WebRTC compliant implementations are supposed to follow.
Working Group Summary
Nothing special to note other than the chairs waffling on whether it was better to send an overview document to the IESG before all of the protocol specifications were completed or after. We decided that we would get dinged either way and that we should press ahead with this draft whenever it was ready in order to save time because, in the end, we do not want to waste time spinning up a new responsible AD.
There are existing implementations of the RTCweb/WebRTC.
There are no reviews that merit special mention.
Sean Turner is the Shepherd.
Alissa Cooper is the responsible AD.
(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
I reviewed this draft as it progressed as well as compared the comments received during WGLC to ensure they were addresses appropriately. I did note two editorial things in my Shepherd review that need to be addressed before final publication and noted them with PRs:
(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
(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 fully expect this document to be held hostage in RFC editor cluster #238 until the normative dependencies catch up.
(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.
Hararld confirmed on 2/21 that his BCP 78/79 obligations as an author have been met.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
None 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?
(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 threats of appeal or otherwise.
(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
-17 needs the 2119 boiler plate and there's a couple of outdated references. These can be incorporated later in the process.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type 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 completion?
Yes - they'll all end up in cluster #238 eventually.
(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.
(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.
No other RFC's status will be harmed as a result of this document.
(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).
There are no IANA considerations so the review was pretty easy ;)
(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.
(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.