Subject: [Sip] Protocol Shepherding Writeup for SIP MIB -- draft-ietf-sip-mib

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:41:30 -0500

As the shepherding WG chair for sip-mib, I've submitted the following  
writeup to the IESG.

---- forwarded text follows ----

The SIP working group would like to request publication of the  
standards-track document draft-ietf-sip-mib-11, which has already  
completed MIB Doctor review. A Protocol Shepherd writeup follows,  
including a draft Document Announcement Writeup.

(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?

The Document Shepherd for draft-ietf-sip-mib-11.txt is Dean Willis,  
co-chair of the SIP Working Group. He has reviewed this document and  
believes it is ready for forwarding 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?

The document has been widely reviewed within the working group and  
within the wider community, including discussion at several standards  
organizations.  It has also been reviewed by Dan Romascanu as the  
specified MIB doctor. The document shepherd has no concerns about the  
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

    (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 has no concerns that the draft needs broader  
review.

    (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 those issues have been discussed in the WG and the
           WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the  
document,
           detail those concerns here.

The document shepherd has personal concerns about whether there is  
any need for a SIP MIB given ongoing evolution in the systems  
management environment, but there is a reasonable consensus in the  
working group and broader community to advance the document despite  
these concerns.

    (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 enjoys a strong consensus of all working group  
participants known to the document shepherd who care about a MIB at all.

    (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 will
           be entered into the ID Tracker.)

There are no known indications of extreme discontent.

    (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd 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.

The document shepherd read through the document,  executed the  
current idnits against it, and worked through the checklist at http:// 
www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and found no issues. The MIB data in  
the document was verified by a third party using the usual tools.

    (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 references are correctly divided, and all normative references  
are to completed standards-track documents.

    (1.i)  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
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

           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?

           Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?   
Have a
              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
              implement the specification?  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?

Document Announcement Writeup for SIP MIB, draft-ietf-sip-mib

Technical Summary:

This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base (a  
MIB) including a set of objects used to manage  Session Initiation  
Protocol (SIP) entities, including SIP User Agents, Proxies, Redirect  
(aka Location) Servers, and Registrars.  Note that this MIB is  
restricted to management and monitoring activities. Following  
extended discussion, the working group chose not to pursue device  
configuration using the SIP MIB, and will rely instead on the SIP  
Configuration Framework being developed in the SIPPING working group.

Working Group Summary:

The SIP Working Group developed this document over a greater than six- 
year period, with the first draft appearing in March of 2000. One of  
the key decisions in its development was the choice to exclude device  
configuration functions from the MIB. This decision was reached after  
the SIP community decided to pursue a SIP-specific configuration  
model as outlined in "A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol  
User Agent Profile Delivery", draft-ietf-sipping-config- 
framework-08.txt. This decision significantly reduced the scope and  
complexity of the SIP MIB. While not all participants in the working  
group are convinced of the need for a SIP MIB, there seems to be a  
very strong consensus on the technical detail of the draft and a  
general agreement on its applicability.

Document Quality:

The document shepherd is aware of at least one pre-specification  
implementation of the SIP MIB developed by a major equipment  
provider. The SIPIT interoperability events have not included SIP MIB  
testing in their events, and the coordinator of those events reports  
that he stopped asking about SIP MIB implementations some years ago  
because of the general lack of interest in the development community.  
However, the industry is beginning to see requirements for SIP MIB  
compliance appear in large-scale Requests For Information and  
Requests For Proposal. The document has also received considerable  
attention from related standards development organizations, including  
PacketCable. Development of this specification was assisted greatly  
by the support of Dan Romascanu acting as the designated "MIB  
Doctor", with additional commentary received from David Harrington..   
The document's "Contributors" section also cites review by  Tom  
Taylor, Kavitha Patchayappan, Dan Romascanu, Cullen Jennings, Orit  
Levin, AC Mahendran, Mary Barnes, Rohan Mahy, Bob Penfield, Charles  
Eckel and Dean Willis. Both Allison Mankin and Cullen Jennings  
oversaw the development as Area Directors, with Cullen Jennings  
serving as the Responsible Area Director at the time of publication  
request. Dean Willis served as the WG Chair Shepherd.

_______________________________________________
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