Subject: [Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-gruu-14.txt

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:15:39 +0200

(As WG chair)

I have just requested publication of:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-gruu-14.txt

The next stage for submitting comments is therefore the IESG last call.

The PROTO writeup submitted with the publication request is as follows.

Please feel free to respond if you consider any of the information
incorrect.

Regards

Keith

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

PROTO writeup for
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-gruu-
14.txt: "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User Agent (UA) URIs
(GRUU) 
in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)"

   (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?

Keith Drage

The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to 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?

Document history:
*	draft-rosenberg-sipping-gruu-reqs-00 was submitted 29th July
2003 and 
expired 27th January 2004.
*	draft-rosenberg-sipping-gruu-reqs-01 was submitted 20th October
2003 
and expired 19th April 2004.
*	draft-rosenberg-sip-gruu-00 was submitted 20th October 2003 and 
expired 19th April 2004.
*	draft-rosenberg-sip-gruu-01 was submitted 5th December 2003 and 
expired 4th June 2004.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-00 was submitted 6th January 2004 and
expired 6th 
July 2004.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-01 was submitted 15th February 2004 and
expired 
15th August 2004.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-02 was submitted 2nd July 2004 and expired
31st 
December 2004.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-03 was submitted 21st February 2005 and
expired 
22nd August 2005.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-04 was submitted 14th July 2005 and expired
15th 
January 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-05 was submitted 28th September 2005 and
expired 
1st April 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-06 was submitted 20th October 2005 and
expired 23rd 
April 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-07 was submitted 6th March 2006 and expired
7th 
September 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-08 was submitted 14th June 2006 and expired
16th 
December 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-09 was submitted 19th June 2006 and expired
21st 
December 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-10 was submitted 31st July 2006 and expired
1st 
February 2007.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-11 was submitted 23rd October 2006 and
expired 26th 
April 2007.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-12 was submitted 5th March 2007 and expires
6th 
September 2007.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-13 was submitted 9th April 2007 and expires
11th 
October 2007.
*	draft-ietf-sip-gruu-14 was submitted 25th June 2007 and expires
27th 
December 2007.

WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-gruu-00 on 13th
January 
2004 with comments requested by 28th January 2004. A second WGLC was 
announced on draft-ietf-sip-gruu-03 on 5th July 2004 with comments
requested 
by 17th July 2004. A third WGLC was announced on draft-ietf-sip-gruu-06
on 
26th October 2005 with comments requested by 6th November 2005. A fourth
WGLC 
was announced on draft-ietf-sip-gruu-10 on 5th August 2006 with comments

requested by 21st August 2006. A fifth WGLC was announced on
draft-ietf-sip-
gruu-11 on 13th November 2006 with comments requested by 27th November
2006.

Review was made and comments were received during the last call
identified 
above from: Andrew Allen, Jeroen van Bemmel, Vijay Gurbani, Paul
Kyzivat, 
Xavier Marjo, Eric Rescorla, Robert Sparks, Dale Worley, (with an
indication 
that all had performed a full review of the draft. During the course of
the 
work comments have also been made by at least the following: Jesus
Javier 
Arauz, Francois Audet, Darshan Bildikar, Spencer Dawkins, John Elwell, 
Miguel Garcia, Michael Hammer, Juha Heinanen, Christer Holmberg, Cullen 
Jennings, Erkki Koivusalo, Jiri Kuthan, Scott Lawrence, Rohan Mahy,
Peter 
Musgrave, Kasturi Narayanan, Aki Niemi, Klaus Nieminen, Sean Olsen,
Michael 
Proctor, Adam Roach, Brian Stucker, Dean Willis (in addition to the
above). 
See also the acknowledgements list in the document. See 
http://www.softarmor.com/sipwg/reviews/gruu/index.html for documentation
of 
the final extensive review.

There have been key issues in the discussion that have been resolved to
the 
satisfaction of the SIP working group, but which are worth mentioning
here:

*	A grid parameter existed as part of the earlier drafts up to
draft-
ietf-sip-gruu-10. The GRID parameter was removed from GRUU in response 
to comments received. Instead, loose routing is proposed to provide 
the ability of 'end-instance switching'. The gr URI parameter 
(formerly gruu URI parameter) now takes a value, replacing opaque as 
the server-side 'switch'. 
*	Up to and including draft-ietf-sip-gruu-10, GRUU did not provide
any 
anonymity functions at all. Indeed, the recommendations for 
construction of gruus were such that they would contain the users AOR. 
The point was raised that there were many places, such as Europe, 
where anonymous calls are the norm. This is because privacy laws 
require that caller ID be given out as an opt-in feature, and the 
default is privacy. Conclusion in -11 was that serial pseudonymity is 
provided. A user is given lots of anonymous GRUU, allowing it to use a 
different one for each call. Each remain valid the entire duration of 
the registration.

   (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?

Whilst not specifically a security related document, the document has
been 
reviewed by Eric Rescorla (the security adviser to the SIP working
group), 
and there are no remaining unresolved issues.

   (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 defines a new SIP protocol extension for a particular
purpose 
in a form that has been used for many other extensions. The document 
shepherd has no concerns with the document.

There is one patent disclosure against this document from Microsoft 
Corporation. They have indicated they are prepared to license any rights
on 
the basis of "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All
Implementers 
with Possible Royalty/Fee". This has been brought to the attention of
the 
working group and no concerns were expressed.

   (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?

The document has been well discussed and extensively reviewed by a 
significant number of members of the working group (see answer in 1(b)).

   (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 indicated. 

   (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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document has been reviewed against the guidelines in RFC 4485 and it
is 
believed that the document is conformant with those guidelines.

While the document defines a new SIP option tag, these have been
performed 
as a SIP working group item, and therefore this draft is in conformance
with 
RFC 3427.

The document passes ID-NITS (idnits 2.04.09) with the exception of the 
following:

  ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the
longest 
one being 6 characters in excess of 72.

   (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 its references into normative and informative 
references. All the normative references are appropriate normative 
references. All the normative references are published except:

*	reference [13] to draft-ietf-sip-outbound which is still in the
final 
stages of development within the SIP working group.

All the normative references are standards track documents except:

*	reference [4] to RFC 2119 which is a BCP.
*	reference [8] to RFC 3968 which is a BCP.
*	reference [9] to RFC 3969 which is a BCP.

All the informative references are also published except:

*	reference [18] to draft-ietf-sipping-cc-transfer which is still
in 
progress in the SIPPING WG.
*	reference [27] to draft-ietf-sipping-gruu-reg-event for which 
publication has been requested by the SIPPING WG.
*	reference [28] to draft-rosenberg-sip-ua-loose-route for which a

charter milestone exists in the SIP WG, and for which this is a 
candidate.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

Section 11.1 of the document registers two new header field parameters.
This 
registration is consistent with RFC 3968 which defines the registry and
is 
also consistent with the current format of the registry.

Section 11.2 of the document registers a new SIP URI parameter. This 
registration is consistent with RFC 3969 which defines the registry and
is 
also consistent with the current format of the registry.

Section 11.3 of the document registers a new option-tag; the new
option-tag 
is defined elsewhere in the document. This registration is consistent
with 
RFC 3261 which defines the registry and is also consistent with the
current 
format of the registry.

   (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?

The ABNF within the document passes the checks in Bill Fenner's ABNF
parsing 
web service.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

Several applications of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) require a
user 
agent (UA) to construct and distribute a URI that can be used by anyone
on 
the Internet to route a call to that specific UA instance.  A URI that 
routes to a specific UA instance is called a Globally Routable UA URI
(GRUU).  
This document describes an extension to SIP for obtaining a GRUU from a 
registrar and for communicating a GRUU to a peer within a dialog.

Working Group Summary

The document complements work already performed in RFC 4474 for 
authenticated request identity, and forms an integral part of the
chartered 
work in this area. There is consensus in the working group to publish
this 
document.

Document Quality

The document has been well discussed by a significant number of members
of 
the working group. 

Personnel

The document shepherd for this document was Keith Drage. The responsible

Area Director was Cullen Jennings. 'The IANA Expert(s) for the
registries in 
this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip