Subject: [Sip] Copy to list: Request for publication of draft-ietf-sip-acr-code-04

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:20:39 -0600

Here's a copy to the list of the publication request for draft-ietf- 
sip-acr-code

-----------

The SIP working group would like to request publication of draft-ietf- 
sip-acr-code-04. This document is intended for publication as a  
Proposed Standard, and is chartered work-product of the SIP working  
group.

A PROTO writeup follows:

    (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 is Dean Willis, co-chair of the SIP working  
group. He has personally reviewed this document and believes this  
version 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 had adequate review from within the working group  
and was reviewed externally by members of ETSI TISPAN who established  
the requirements met by this document. It is a fairly straightforward  
SIP extension and should not require a great deal of review.

    (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.

One potentially questionable aspect of this document is that it makes  
a normative reference to the privacy functions defined in the  
informational RFC 3325. While informational, this RFC is the basis of  
the privacy mechanism in the current IMS specifications referenced by  
3GPP and ETSI TISPAN. The reference is structured to say that "If you  
are using the privacy mechanisms defined in RFC 3325, then . . . "  
rather than recommending the RFC 3325 mechanism as a baseline. I  
believe this to be a reasonable down-reference.

    (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 WG consensus is that the approach specified in this document is  
both reasonable and obvious.

    (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.)
No.

    (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?

The shepherd processed the document through the current version of  
idnits (2.03.9). This check noted the down-reference to RFC 3325  
discussed above, and one minor formatting error (a doubled space in  
the title of a reference) that isn't worth revising the document to  
address. There are no known formal review criteria applicable to this  
document. (Note: Keith thinks this probably should have mentioned RFC  
4485, but I don't think this is a formal review)

The document is also lacking an "Intended Status" line in the front  
matter. The intended status of this document is "Proposed Standard".

    (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].

See discussion under 1.d above.

    (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?

The IANA considerations section appears to be reasonable. It defines  
one new SIP response code to be placed in the existing sip-parameters  
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?

There are no document sections 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 defines an extension to the Session Initiation Protocol  
providing a new response code that may be used to reject an anonymous  
request so that the requesting party can understand that the request  
was rejected because it was made anonymously and could reasonably be  
expected to succeed if retried without anonymity.

Working Group Summary

The requirement addressed by this document was identified by ETSI  
TISPAN. The SIPPING working group discussed the requirement and  
determined that a SIP extension would be required to address that  
requirement. The technique specified by this document was originally  
introduced in an individual document submitted by Jonathan Rosenberg  
and discussed in the SIP working group. The SIP working group rapidly  
achieved consensus on the approach and recommended establishing a  
working group milestone for this work. There was no controversy  
within the SIP working group on the direction of this work.

Document Quality

This is a very simple extension to the SIP protocol. It is expected  
to be widely implemented in SIP systems interacting with the switched  
telephone networks of the world. Since it addresses requirements from  
ETSI TISPAN, participants from that organization were asked to review  
the specification and reported that it is suitable for their needs.

Personnel

The document shepherd is Dean Willis. The responsible area director  
is Cullen Jennings. No IANA expert, MIB doctor, or other specialized  
contributor is required.

_______________________________________________
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