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?
Proposed Standard. This is an updated version of RFC 6363 which is a Proposed
Standard itself. It is correctly indicated in the header as Standards Track.
(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:
RFC 6363 describes a framework for using Forward Error Correction
(FEC) codes to provide protection against packet loss. The framework
supports applying FEC to arbitrary packet flows over unreliable
transport and is primarily intended for real-time, or streaming,
media. However FECFRAME as per RFC 6363 is restricted to block FEC
codes. The present document extends FECFRAME to support FEC Codes
based on a sliding encoding window, in addition to Block FEC Codes,
in a backward compatible way. During multicast/broadcast real-time
content delivery, the use of sliding window codes significantly
improves robustness in harsh environments, with less repair traffic
and lower FEC-related added latency.
Working Group Summary
RFC 6363 was a product of the former FECFRAME working group, which closed
several years ago. FECFRAME was in the TSV area. When several original
FECFRAME participants proposed updates/extensions to support new types of codes
(with benefits for some real world applications), between the Area Directors
and the TSVWG, it was agreed that the work should be done in TSVWG, and two
documents including this one were adopted. Several FECFRAME participants are
either authors/editors listed on the documents, or participated in reviews.
Other than this history, there were no other significant issues or events of
interest in the working group process on this document.
There have been implementations. The implementations were reported to the
working group, and the documents benefited from the implementation and testing
The document shepherd is Wesley Eddy (email@example.com), and the responsible
AD is Spencer Dawkins.
(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 has been fully reviewed, and is ready for publication.
(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
(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.
All authors have confirmed that they have no disclosures to make.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There are no IPR disclosures.
(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 subset of the working group that is interested in FECFRAME seems to have
consensus on the document. The document has also been a topic of discussion in
the IRTF Network Coding Research Group since this is a FEC technology, and
there does not appear to be any contention there.
(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
(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?
All normative references are PS or BCP.
(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.
It updates RFC 6363. As explained in the document (in the introduction, and
specifically near the top of page 4), it extends but does not replace RFC 6363,
so "updates" carries the right semantics.
(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).
The IANA considerations section is complete. New registries are not required,
only new entry in the existing FECFRAME encoding IDs registry.
(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.