(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 - similar to all the other XRBLOCK documents. Header says ' Intended status: 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:
An MPEG Transport Stream (TS) is a standard container format used in
the transmission and storage of multimedia data. Unicast/Multicast/
Broadcast MPEG-TS over RTP is widely deployed in IPTV systems. This
document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR)
Block that allows the reporting of MPEG TS Program Specific
Information (PSI) Independent decodability statistics metrics related
to transmissions of MPEG-TS over RTP.
Working Group Summary
The WG path of this document was reasonably short and efficient.
Many technical comments were made during the reviews and all were
resolved with consensus.
At least one vendor has implemented this draft. It is expected that with
the approval of this document the number of implementations will increase.
Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo
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
I have performed a detailed review of the document and I consider it
(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
This I-D deals with metrics defined in the ETSI TR 101 290 document.
Although the metrics defined by that document are stable and in usage
in the industry, not all information may be available or expressed
in the format used in the IETF. For this reason a PM-DIR review may help.
Although several PM-DIR members participate in the WG, a formal RFC 6390
review could be useful.
(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
I have no concerns. One aspect that was discussed in detail was the scope of
the metrics to be supported (report all indications in the first priority and
second priority vs. report all the parameters that can be easily gathered by
parsing the TS header). The consensus was to include the more limited scope
and explicitly say that the block includes MPEG TS PSI Independent
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability or its predecessors.
(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 number of active participants in the Working Group is not very high (around ten). Among the active participants there seems to be solid consensus in support of 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 http://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.
I would recommend for another reviewer from the performance metrics directorate to do an RFC 6390 review of the I-D.
(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 (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).
The document requires from IANA allocations of values in existing registries which are clearly defined.
(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.