Shepherd wiretap for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata-11
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
(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?
Standards Track, PS.
(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:
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is a message oriented
transport protocol supporting arbitrarily large user messages. This
document adds a new chunk to SCTP for carrying payload data. This
allows a sender to interleave different user messages that would
otherwise result in head of line blocking at the sender.
Whenever an SCTP sender is allowed to send user data, it may choose
from multiple outgoing SCTP streams. Multiple ways for performing
this selection, called stream schedulers, are defined. A stream
scheduler can choose to either implement, or not implement, user
In line with other SCTP specifications, this document includes an informational appendix describing and API to the mechanisms.
Working Group Summary:
The document has received feedback from the WG.
This document is one of several relating to WebRTC Datachannels, and has received inputs from other related WGs.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Gorry Fairhurst
Who is the Responsible Area Director? 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 IESG.
This document is ready.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. This draft has been reviewed many times.
The FreeBSD kernel implementation and the userland stack usrsctp (which shares most of the code) both support sending and receiving of I-DATA chunks. An implementation of interleaving schedulers is planned in the timeframe of IETF 99.
(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.
(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.
(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 authors confirm they know of no IPR.
(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 known.
(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 document has been presented to the WG and there was consensus on the document during WGLC. Minor issues were raised, and changes have been incorporated in this revision of the ID.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
(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?
(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.
(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 memo includes a request to IANA, see the IANA considerations. The request seems to be consistent with other SCTP assignments.
(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 memo does not include a request for a new registry to 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.