Subject: [avtext] RAMs scenarios

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:17:22 +0100

(As WG cochair)

I have just requested publication of draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-03 as an informational RFC.

You will notice that Ali recently (today) produced a new version of this document, which has some very minor editorial changes to it (i.e. none of them have any technical impact whatsoever). 

The writeup follows below.

Regards

Keith

Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-03

(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?

The document is being requested as an informational RFC.

This document provides supporting informational text to RFC 6285 which is the 
related standards track document. It contains no normative material in its own 
right. While it contains example scenarios, none of these are a recommended 
solution so it is not considered a BCP.

The cover page indicates: "Intended status:  Informational".

(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:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
  or introduction.

   The Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions (RAMS) solution is a
   method based on RTP and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) that enables an
   RTP receiver to rapidly acquire and start consuming the RTP multicast
   data.  Upon a request from the RTP receiver, an auxiliary unicast RTP
   retransmission session is set up between a retransmission server and
   the RTP receiver, over which the reference information about the new
   multicast stream the RTP receiver is about to join is transmitted at
   an accelerated rate.  This often precedes, but may also accompany,
   the multicast stream itself.  When there is only one multicast stream
   to be acquired, the RAMS solution works in a straightforward manner.
   However, when there are two or more multicast streams to be acquired
   from the same or different multicast RTP sessions, care should be
   taken to configure each RAMS session appropriately.  This document
   provides example scenarios and discusses how the RAMS solution could
   be used in such scenarios.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
  example, was there controversy about particular points or 
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
  rough?

The document is a product of the AVTEXT working group. All controversial issues 
were issues of the preceding RAMS document already published in RFC 6285, and 
this document raised no new issues.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
  review, on what date was the request posted?

There are existing implementations of RFC 6285. This document merely gives some 
example scenarios of the usage of RFC 6285.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Keith Drage 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
the IESG.

The document is ready for publication.

Brief history of the document:

-	draft-begen-avt-rams-scenarios-00 was submitted 1st October 2009 and 
expired 4th April 2009.
-	draft-begen-avt-rams-scenarios-01 was submitted 15th February 2011 and 
expired 19th August 2011.
-	draft-begen-avtext-rams-scenarios-00 was submitted 2nd March 2011 and 
expired 3rd September 2011.
-	draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-00 was submitted 10th June 2011 and 
expired 12th December 2011.
-	draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-01 was submitted 11th October 2011 and 
expires 13th April 2012.
-	draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-02 was submitted 17th January 2012 and 
expires 20th July 2012.
-	draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-03 was submitted 9th March 2012 and 
expires 10th September 2012.
-	A consensus call for adoption of the working group text was issued on 10th 
March 2011.
-	Prior to WGLC an extensive review of the document was performed by Tom Van 
Caenegam
-	WGLC was initiated on 22nd November 2011 to complete 13th December 2011 as 
an informational document on the -01 version of the document. During WGLC the 
document received review and comments from Colin Perkins, and Kevin Gross.

All normal prepublication checks have been performed on the document.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

There are no concerns.

(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.

The documents contains some SDP examples. While a formal SDP review has not been 
requested, the document has been reviewed by Colin Perkins and no issues were 
identified.

(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.

There are no specific 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.

The author is not aware of any IPR disclosures that need to be made in relation 
to this document.

(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 have been made in respect of this document.

It should be noted that there are IPR disclosures on RFC 6285 from Cisco, 
Microsoft, Alcatel-Lucent and Huawei. In order to implement RFC 6285 to perform 
the scenarios in this document, due attention may need to be made to those 
disclosures. I do not believe that necessitates a separate disclosure on this 
document.

(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?   

I believe the document has sufficient WG consensus behind it. Key individuals 
have reviewed it and identified that it is in alignment with RFC 6285 which is 
the related standards track 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.) 

No such objections have been identified.

(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.

No NITs have been identified.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document contains some example SDP usage. See answer to question (5).

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

This is an informational document, containing no requirements material, and as 
such all references are essentially informational. The original RAMs RFC has 
been identified as normative, but this is primarily from the perspective that 
that document must be read in order to understand this document, rather than any 
usage in the true meaning of normative reference.

(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?

All references, both normative and informative, in this document, have been 
published already.

(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. 

This document has no downward references. It is an informational document 
referencing either standards track or informational RFCs.

(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.

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).

This document contains no IANA requirements, and has no need to do so.

(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 contains no IANA requirements, and has no need to do so.

(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.

Apart from nit checking, no automated checks have been performed on this 
document. See answer to question (5) concerning the review of the SDP.