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.