Subject: [Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:18:51 +0200

(As WG chair)

I have just requested publication of:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-02.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-ice-option-tag-
02.txt: "Indicating Support for Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE) 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?

The need for a SIP option tag developed out of discussions in the MMUSIC
working group 
on draft-ietf-sip-ice. See discussion in IETF#67, and discussions on the
IETF MMUSIC 
list (Christer Holmber, Michael Slavitch). In conformance with RFC 3427,
this portion of 
the work was passed to the SIP working group.

Document history:

-	draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-00 was submitted 1st March 2007
and expires 1st 
September 2007.
-	draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-01 was submitted 5th March 2007
and expires 6th 
September 2007.
-	draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-02 was submitted 19th June 2007
and expires 21st 
December 2007.

WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-01 on
29th March 2007 
with comments requested by 20th April 2007.

Review was made and comments were received from: Peter Blatherwick,
Jeroen van Bemmel, 
Kevin Johns. During the course of the work comments have also been made
by: Ernst 
Horvath.

   (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 defines mechanisms that are entirely internal to the
Session Initiation 
Protocol (SIP). The document shepherd considers that no external review
from an external 
specialist is necessary.

   (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 have been no IPR disclosures on this document.

   (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 reviewed by appropriate SIP experts. It is not
considered that any 
of the topics have significant architectural or protocol impact.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.

For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.04.09 report no NITS found
except that draft-
ietf-mmusic-ice-13 is now at a later version. While this needs
correction, it should not 
cause a problem in allowing IESG last call to proceed. There are no
dependent issues in 
the revisions that impact the technical contents of this draft.

   (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 separate sections for normative and informative
references. The 
normative references have been checked and found to be normative. The
informative 
references have also been checked and found to be all informative.

There are no downrefs in the document.

   (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?

The document defines the following values that require registration:

*	A SIP option tag for ice. The IANA registry requirements are for
a standards track 
document and this is a standards track document. The IANA considerations
section in 
section 7.1 of the document provides for the appropriate revision to the
registry in 
conformance with the format of that registry.
*	A media feature tag for ice. The IANA registry requirements are
for IETF consensus 
which can here be represented by the contents of a standards track
document. The IANA 
considerations section in section 7.2 of the document provides for the
appropriate 
revision to the registry in conformance with the format of that
registry. Note that 
while the presentation of the information is slightly different to that
of the IANA 
registry, this is the format that all previous information for this
registry has been 
presented in.

   (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 document contains no material 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
             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 the 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?  If
             there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
             what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
             Review, on what date was the request posted?

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
             experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
             in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Technical summary.

This specification defines a media feature tag and an option tag for use
with the 
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).  The media feature tag allows a UA to
communicate to 
its registrar that it supports ICE. The option tag allows a User Agent
(UA) to require 
support for ICE in order for a call to proceed.

Working group summary.

There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. The
document came 
about as a result of discussions in the IETF MMUSIC working group to
progress draft-
ietf-mmusic-ice.

Document Quality

There has been no indication of implementation of this specific draft.
There are known 
implementations of earlier versions of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice.

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