Subject: [AVT] Request for publication -- draft-ietf-avt-forward-shifted-red-04.txt

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:55:39 -0400

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
         Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
         document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
         version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Tom Taylor is Document Shepherd. I have read this version and believe it is ready.

   (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
         and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
         any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
         have been performed?

I believe the document has had adequate review, although only four people have 
commented on it over the course of its life. The scope is quite specific, so 
that a broader review isn't really necessary.

   (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
         needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
         e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
         AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

   (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
         issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
         been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
         disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
         this issue.

No concerns. No IPR declarations have been posted.

   (1.e) 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?

It represents the concurrence of a few individuals with others being silent.

   (1.f) 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
         entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

   (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
         document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
         and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
         not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
         met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
         Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Idnits is satisfied. Media type review drew no response.

   (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
         informative? 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
         strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
         that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
         so, list these downward references to support the Area
         Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

All references are normative. No reference issues.

   (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
         consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
         of the document? If the document specifies protocol
         extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
         registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
         the document creates a new registry, does it define the
         proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
         procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
         reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
         document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
         conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
         can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

All OK.

   (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
         document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
         code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
         an automated checker?

Two small SDP examples verified by inspection only.

   (1.k) 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
    This document defines a simple enhancement to RFC 2198 to support RTP
    sessions with forward-shifted redundant encodings, i.e., redundant
    data sent before the corresponding primary data.  Forward-shifted
    redundancy can be used to conceal losses of a large number of
    consecutive media frames (e.g., consecutive loss of seconds or even
    tens of seconds of media).

      Working Group Summary
    The need for this work was questioned at the outset, but the arguments
    advanced in its favour were sufficient to satisfy the people concerned.
    As a result of its very specific scope, the work drew comments from
    few people, but the Document Shepherd is satisfied that the reviews
    were sufficient.

      Document Quality
    Colin Perkins bears special mention for his careful reviews at the
    beginning and during Working Group Last Call. Media type review was
    posted on January 4, 2010.