As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
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?
Informational is requested; this is reflected in the title page header.
(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:
This document provides an informational reference describing the role of SDP and example Offer/Answer exchanges for common WebRTC uses of JSEP (draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep). These reference are not normative, but provided as informative examples for implementers.
Working Group Summary
The working group had consensus to publish as Informational.
This document represents a challenge to most reviewers both because of its length and the nature of SDP’s long history of aggregating semantics to a syntax originally designed for very different tasks. Magnus Westerlund, Paul Kyzivat, Justin Uberti, Chris Flo, Flemming Andreasen, Christer Holmberg, and Nils Ohlmeier provided valuable reviews.
Ted Hardie is the document shepherd. Adam Roach is the responsible area director.
(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.
As the document shepherd is not an SDP expert, he did not undertake an individual review of the document but is relying on the reviews solicited by the chairs during and before working group last call. There was one set of review items raised during working group last call that were not handled prior to the request for publication, because one of the authors was on parental leave. The chairs anticipate them being handled along with any issues which come up during IETF Last Call.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I understand that at least one author of JSEP would have preferred creating a tool that emitted JSEP-derived SDP as an alternative to this document’s examples. The production of that tool and alternative document did not appear over many months after that preference was expressed, however, and the chairs feel it is better to move forward with a well-reviewed version created in this way than to have no example document.
(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.
They require review from the SDP directorate, which was requested and received.
(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.
See the answer to #3.
(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.
(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 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 represents the concurrence of those who are deeply imbued with SDP arcana. The working group outside of that set agrees with the need for this 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.)
(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 thorough.
ID nits include the use of inappropriate example IPv4 address ranges, some outdated references, and a small number of references which are not used. The authors have been requested to fix these nits along with any other issues that arise in Last Call.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The SDP directorate review is the relevant formal review; see above.
(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?
The document references a number of the specifications that are or will be part of RFC cluster 238, and it will not advance until that cluster has been resolved. The working group is aware of this.
(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.
The document does not request any downward normative 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.
(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.
That authors used the syntax validation script provided by Adam Roach to check the syntax of the relevant entries.