PROTO questionnaire for: draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-12
Date: May 4, 2016
(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?
This document is to be published as a Proposed Standard. It is an update to existing Standards track RFCs (RFC 4975 and RFC 4976) thus it is the proper type and it as indicated as such in the title page.
(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 WebSocket protocol enables two-way real-time communication
between clients and servers in situations where direct access to TCP
web browser). This document specifies a new WebSocket sub-protocol
as a reliable transport mechanism between MSRP (Message Session Relay
Protocol) clients and relays to enable usage of MSRP in new
scenarios. This document normatively updates RFC 4975 and RFC 4976.
Working Group Summary
This document has been reviewed by the DISPATCH WG, although it is not a WG document. Per the DISPATCH process, this document is being progressed as AD sponsored as the protocol to which it relates was developed in a WG that is now closed and the scope of the protocol work in this document was deemed appropriate for AD sponsorship.
The document has been reviewed by the DISPATCH WG. Ben Campbell (pre-AD days) did an expert review of the document and his comments have been addressed.
Mary Barnes is the document shepherd and Ben Campbell is the responsible AD.
(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.
The document shepherd has thoroughly reviewed this version of the document and deems it ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.
(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The document shepherd has no concerns.
(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 discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There is no IPR associated with this document.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?
There were no concerns raised around the publication 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 thorough.
The draft has been validated for nits using idnits 2.14.01. There are a few warnings that are not problematic.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews are required.
(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.
No, this document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(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 shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations. This document adds a new value to an existing registry, which is clearly specified in the IANA considerations section.
(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 document defines no new IANA registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No automated checks were done for this document - the BNF and message examples were visually checked by the authors.