Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package-09

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:25:32 -0600

Greetings, Robert,

Please find our shepherd report for MIXER, the third leg of the MEDIACTRL 
stool. I believe you have been holding off on IETF Last Call for FRAMEWORK 
and IVR, pending this document - you should be good to go on all three, 
after your AD Evaluation of MIXER.

Thanks for your support.

Spencer, as co-chair

------------

Document: A Mixer Control Package for the Media Control Channel Framework

draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package-09

(Standards Track)

(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 is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed this
version of the document, and 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 document was actually co-authored by many of the key WG members :-), 
and the document has been closely reviewed by multiple implementation teams 
(most recently at Broadsoft, and the Broadsoft team members were not 
document authors).

Shawn Emery performed an early sec-dir review at the request of the chairs.

We held the MIXER back while Ben Campbell reviewed the IVR package (the 
first MEDIACTL package to be sent for publication) for the RAI Area Review 
Team. When we received feedback for IVR that was also applicable to the 
MIXER control package, the editor modified the MIXER control package as 
well.

     (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.

None.

     (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?

Strong consensus for publishing. This is one of two key control packages for
the entire working group.

The only contentious discussion we've had resulting from WGLC was whether 
errors that occur in both IVR and MIXER should have the same error code. 
After some discussion on the mailing list, Eric and I decided that this 
wasn't a useful change, because most possible errors do not occur in more 
than one package. We expect that error handlers must be written per-package 
anyway, and this would have required us to pull the IVR control package 
document back into the working group, for minimal gain.

     (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.

     (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?

Checked with ID nits 2.11.05. The document generates a LOT of spurious nits,
because

- it uses square brackets to identify requirement labels, which look like
dangling references - but they aren't - and

- because the draft contains a "changes from previous versions" section with
a lot of section labels that look like (non-RFC 3330) IP addresses - but
they aren't - and

- because the draft includes XML attributes that look like (non-RFC 2606)
FQDNs - but they aren't.

All of these nits are spurious.

The document uses active tense in its 2119 boilerplate instead of the
passive voice most documents use.

     (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].

We do have normative and informative references. All normative references
are published except for the MEDIACTRL Control Framework (previously
submitted for publication), and there are no down-refs ([XML] is spurious).

     (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?

Yes, for all applicable questions :D

     (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?

Implementers reported that they validated the XML schema using xerces-c 3.0 
(Broadsoft) and XMLSpy (Meetecho).

     (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 Media Control Channel Framework Package for
   managing mixers for media conferences and connections.  The package
   defines request elements for managing conference mixers, managing
   mixers between conferences and/or connections, as well as associated
   responses and notifications.  The package also defines elements for
   auditing package capabilities and mixers.

           Working Group Summary

Nothing out of the ordinary happened in the WG that was worth noting.

           Document Quality

This document has sufficient normative statements and examples for one
to create an implementation. There are at least four independent
implementations of the control package described by this document.

This document has been stable for several versions, with small changes in
each revision, discussed on the mailing list. Most of the recent changes
have been suggested based on implementer experience.