WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP)
draft-ietf-wish-whip-13

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-13; we had also previously reviewed draft-ietf-wish-whip-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has questions about the third and fourth actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

First, in the Link Relation Types registry in the Link Relations registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/

a new link relation is to be registered as follows:

Relation Name: ice-server
Description: Conveys the STUN and TURN servers that can be used by an ICE Agent to establish a connection with a peer.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we had previously completed the required Expert Review via a separate request. The authors will also note that new link relations can be can be requested using the [ https://github.com/protocol-registries/link-relations ] or the mailing list defined in [RFC8288].

Second, in the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers registry in the Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for IETF Use registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/params/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Registered Parameter Identifier: whip
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
IANA Registry Reference: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

Third, a new registry is to be created called the WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP) URIs registry.

IANA QUESTION --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry group? If it needs a new registry group, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the registry group and the category have the same name)?

The reference for the new registry will be [ RFC-to-be ] and the registration policy will be Specification Required as defined in RFC8126.

IANA understands that registrations in this new registry consist of:

a URI;
a name;
a description;
a reference;
contact information.

IANA QUESTION --> Are there any initial registrations in the new registry?

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. New registrations will be requested to be sent using the WHIP Protocol Extension Registration Template in Section 6.4.3 in the current draft to the mailing list at wish@ietf.org.

IANA QUESTION --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry group? If it needs a new registry group, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the registry group and the category have the same name)?

IANA understands that registrations in this new registry consist of:

a URN;
a reference to a publicly available specification;
a name;
a description; and,
contact information for the registration.

IANA QUESTION --> Are there any initial registrations in the new registry?

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-04-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-wish-whip@ietf.org, nils.ohlmeier@8x8.com, superuser@gmail.com, wish-chairs@ietf.org, wish@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS
WG (wish) to consider the following document: - 'WebRTC-HTTP ingestion
protocol (WHIP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-04-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a simple HTTP-based protocol that will allow
  WebRTC-based ingestion of content into streaming services and/or
  CDNs.

  This document updates RFC 8842 and RFC 8840.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Shepherd writeup for WISH-WHIP https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group has reached broad agreement on this document and most points.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

A small point of controversy was if support for Trickle ICE should be optional, as it can lead in corner cases to problematic signaling scenarios.

After changes based on Directorate comments were incorporated, a 2nd WGLC was run and comments were resolved.

3. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with work from the RtcWeb working group. Bernard Aboba, an expert on RtcWeb, reviewed the draft and provided his feedback.

4. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft doesn’t define anything new, which requires expert review.

5. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

No YANG models contained.

6. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

7. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

8. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

ART area issues from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/art/wiki/TypicalARTAreaIssues were checked and no issues were identified.

9. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is on the Internet Standard track, because it aims at establishing a new standard for ingesting into streaming services.

10. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Nobody ever mentioned any concerns regarding IPR at any point.

11. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
Dr. Alex Gouaillard is deceased, so we assume his willingness.

12. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 45 characters in excess of 72.

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too?

13. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

14. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

Not applicable.

15. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

Not applicable.

16. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

17. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Not applicable.

18. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

IANA consideration section was reviewed and appears to be in order.

19. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

New IANA registry for URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. Instructions for designated expert review point to the wish mailing list. Given that this is a new area with no real established experts this seems to be appropriate.

Shepherd writeup for WISH-WHIP https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group has reached broad agreement on this document and most points.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

A small point of controversy was if support for Trickle ICE should be optional, as it can lead in corner cases to problematic signaling scenarios.

After changes based on Directorate comments were incorporated, a 2nd WGLC was run and comments were resolved.

3. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with work from the RtcWeb working group. Bernard Aboba, an expert on RtcWeb, reviewed the draft and provided his feedback.

4. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft doesn’t define anything new, which requires expert review.

5. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

No YANG models contained.

6. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

7. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

8. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

ART area issues from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/art/wiki/TypicalARTAreaIssues were checked and no issues were identified.

9. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is on the Internet Standard track, because it aims at establishing a new standard for ingesting into streaming services.

10. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Nobody ever mentioned any concerns regarding IPR at any point.

11. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
Dr. Alex Gouaillard is deceased, so we assume his willingness.

12. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 45 characters in excess of 72.

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too?

13. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

14. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

Not applicable.

15. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

Not applicable.

16. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

17. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Not applicable.

18. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

IANA consideration section was reviewed and appears to be in order.

19. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

New IANA registry for URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. Instructions for designated expert review point to the wish mailing list. Given that this is a new area with no real established experts this seems to be appropriate.

The relation name is 'ice-server', which his reasonably generic and intuitive, but the description is:

> For the WHIP protocol, conveys the STUN and TURN servers that can be used by an ICE Agent to establish a connection with a peer.

... which is very specific to the WHIP protocol.

If you wish to use the generic name, please make the description match; e.g., remove 'For the WHIP protocol'.

Alternatively, if you wish to have a relation type that's specific to the WHIP protocol, I'd suggest something like 'whip-ice-agent'.

Cheers,

Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has questions about two of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the Link Relation Types registry in the Link Relations registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/

a new link relation is to be registered as follows:

Relation Name: ice-server
Description: For the WHIP protocol, conveys the STUN and TURN servers that can be used by an ICE Agent to establish a connection with a peer.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK." The authors will also note that new link relations can be can be requested using the [ https://github.com/protocol-registries/link-relations ] or the mailing list defined in [RFC8288].

Second, in the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers registry in the Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for IETF Use registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/params/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Registered Parameter Identifier: whip
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
IANA Registry Reference: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

Third, a new registry is to be created called the WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP) URIs registry.


IANA QUESTION --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry group? If it needs a new registry group, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the registry group and the category have the same name)?

IANA QUESTION --> Section 6.4.1 refers twice to a mailing list with an address of wish@ietf.org. Should this be whip@ietf.org, or is wish@ietf.org correct?


The reference for the new registry will be [ RFC-to-be ] and the registration policy will be Specification Required as defined in RFC8126.

IANA understands that registrations in this new registry consist of:

a URI;
a name;
a description;
a reference;
contact information.


IANA QUESTION --> Are there any initial registrations in the new registry?


The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-08-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-wish-whip@ietf.org, nils.ohlmeier@8x8.com, superuser@gmail.com, wish-chairs@ietf.org, wish@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS
WG (wish) to consider the following document: - 'WebRTC-HTTP ingestion
protocol (WHIP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-08-08. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a simple HTTP-based protocol that will allow
  WebRTC-based ingestion of content into streaming services and/or
  CDNs.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Shepherd writeup for WISH-WHIP https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group has reached broad agreement on this document and most points.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

A small point of controversy was if support for Trickle ICE should be optional, as it can lead in corner cases to problematic signaling scenarios.

3. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with work from the RtcWeb working group. Bernard Aboba, an expert on RtcWeb, reviewed the draft and provided his feedback.

4. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft doesn’t define anything new, which requires expert review.

5. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

No YANG models contained.

6. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

7. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

8. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

ART area issues from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/art/wiki/TypicalARTAreaIssues were checked and no issues were identified.

9. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is on the Internet Standard track, because it aims at establishing a new standard for ingesting into streaming services.

10. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Nobody ever mentioned any concerns regarding IPR at any point.

11. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
Dr. Alex Gouaillard is deceased, so we assume his willingness.

12. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 45 characters in excess of 72.

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too?

13. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

14. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

Not applicable.

15. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

Not applicable.

16. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

17. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Not applicable.

18. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

IANA consideration section was reviewed and appears to be in order.

19. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

New IANA registry for URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. Instructions for designated expert review point to the wish mailing list. Given that this is a new area with no real established experts this seems to be appropriate.

Shepherd writeup for WISH-WHIP https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group has reached broad agreement on this document and most points.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

A small point of controversy was if support for Trickle ICE should be optional, as it can lead in corner cases to problematic signaling scenarios.

3. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with work from the RtcWeb working group. Bernard Aboba, an expert on RtcWeb, reviewed the draft and provided his feedback.

4. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft doesn’t define anything new, which requires expert review.

5. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

No YANG models contained.

6. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

7. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

8. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

ART area issues from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/art/wiki/TypicalARTAreaIssues were checked and no issues were identified.

9. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is on the Internet Standard track, because it aims at establishing a new standard for ingesting into streaming services.

10. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Nobody ever mentioned any concerns regarding IPR at any point.

11. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
Dr. Alex Gouaillard is deceased, so we assume his willingness.

12. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 45 characters in excess of 72.

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too?

13. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

14. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

Not applicable.

15. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

Not applicable.

16. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

17. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Not applicable.

18. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

IANA consideration section was reviewed and appears to be in order.

19. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

New IANA registry for URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. Instructions for designated expert review point to the wish mailing list. Given that this is a new area with no real established experts this seems to be appropriate.