Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Shepherd writeup and publication request for draft-ietf-mediactrl-architecture-03

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:29:24 -0500

Hi, Jon,

MEDIACTRL is requesting publication of this draft as Informational. It 
fulfills a charter milestone.

Thanks,

Spencer, as co-chair

Shepherd writeup follows:

(This writeup uses the template dated February 1, 2007)

   (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?

Spencer Dawkins (MEDIACTRL Co-chair) is document shepherd, has personally
reviewed this version of the document, and believes it is ready to forward
to the IESG for publication.

   (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?

This draft (and previous versions of the draft) have been well-discussed by
key WG members on the MEDIACTRL mailing list.

   (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?

The document shepherd expects that various Area Review Teams would review
this document, but no additional review is required.

   (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.

The document shepherd is not aware of specific concerns or issues with this
document.

The document shepherd does not believe any IPR disclosures are applicable to
this architecture draft.

   (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?

This draft was originally developed by a design team, but this draft has
also been also been discussed by the working group on the mailing list. The
WGLC for version 00 was very quiet on the mailing list, and discussion of
this draft at the IETF 70 MEDIACTRL meeting did not raise issues.

Recent work on this draft has focused on security considerations (early
versions of the draft had minimal text), in concert with discussions about
security requirements in the mediactrl requirements draft (previously
published as RFC 5167).

The shepherd believes there is WG consensus behind this document.

   (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.)

None that the shepherd is aware of.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?

Automated checking (idnits idnits 2.08.05) finds one warning, but it's 
spurious ([ACCEPTED] looks like a reference, but it's not)

  == Missing Reference: 'ACCEPTED' is mentioned on line 837, but not defined

From ID-Checklist Revision 1.7, no nits found.

There are no additional formal review criteria that are applicable to this
document.

   (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].

The document has split references.

   (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 [RFC2434].  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?

There are no IANA actions required for this architecture draft.

   (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?

No sections of this architecture draft are written in a formal language.

   (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 specifies an architecture for a media server control protocol
(MCP) that enables an application server to control a media server.  It
addresses aspects of announcements, interactive voice response (IVR), and
conferencing media services.

          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?

Most of the text in this draft has been stable for a long time. The shepherd
doesn't think consensus on this draft is rough.

          Document Quality
             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?

Jon Peterson reviewed this draft for the IESG. 

_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:38:12 -0500

Dear Mediactrl,

Just to be clear - the delay in requesting publication after IETF 71 was 
mine. Tim did a very quick turnaround, after I sent my first-draft shepherd 
writeup - thanks to Tim, and to everyone who contributed to this draft.

And now, onto IVR...

Spencer