[MEDIACTRL] Shepherd writeup and publication request for draft-ietf-mediactrl-architecture-03
"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Thu, 17 April 2008 18:30 UTC
Return-Path: <mediactrl-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mediactrl-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mediactrl-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728B33A6DA3; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mediactrl@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC7028C506; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.551, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76twhS-0IkYu; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E2C3A6BFF; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s73602 (w173.z064002096.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.96.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1JmYsY1Ior-0005xL; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:30:42 -0400
Message-ID: <0ac601c8a0b8$f9b03340$ad600240@china.huawei.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:29:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18j4sEw3y9rmxDQuyf/HEXe+eVGR95UwXvB24q RJZxcVVr8GRQ+YQj3veMyZSWPW5kegoFGSOuD0hQ3KRfeAicCz /fFR3tMO4PvEW5hAtS3JZ0gGEDNeyIkpa9T+MtQ0ac=
Cc: iesg-secretary@iesg.org, mediactrl@ietf.org
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Shepherd writeup and publication request for draft-ietf-mediactrl-architecture-03
X-BeenThere: mediactrl@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <mediactrl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mediactrl>
List-Post: <mailto:mediactrl@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mediactrl-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mediactrl-bounces@ietf.org
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 MEDIACTRL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl Supplemental Web Site: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
- [MEDIACTRL] Shepherd writeup and publication requ… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [MEDIACTRL] Shepherd writeup and publication … Spencer Dawkins