Subject: [Sip] Proto writeup for draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:04:33 +0200

(As SIP WG cochair)

I have just requested publication of
draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03

The Proto writeup for this document is as follows:

PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-
namespaces-03.txt: " IANA Registration of New Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Resource-
Priority Header Namespaces"

   (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-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00 was submitted 26th February
2007 and expired 
26th August 2007.
-	draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01 was submitted 9th July 2007
and expired 9th 
January 2008.
-	draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00 was submitted 16th October
2007 and expired 
16th April 2008.
-	draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01.txt was submitted 19th
November 2007 and 
expired 17th May 2008.
-	draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-02.txt was submitted 21st
February 2008 and 
expires 21st August 2008.
-	draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt was submitted 10th
March 2008 and 
expires 10th September 2008.

WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00
on 31st October 
2007 with comments requested by 14th November 2007.

Review was made and comments were received from: Janet Gunn, Joel
Halpern, John 
Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, Hannes Tschofenig, Dean Willis. During
the course of the 
work comments have also been made by: Janet Gunn, Dale Worley.

The main reason for the document is to create the IANA namespaces, but
in the process of 
doing this it also requires one very small update to RFC 4412 in order
to create the 
OPTIONAL delimiter, which would be opaque to implementers otherwise, and
potentially 
causing implementations to not process the header (therefore message)
correctly.

One of the issues in the WGLC was the number of namespaces generated,
which apparently 
contravenes RFC 4412 which essentially says that one should reuse
existing namespaces if 
they are applicable, rather than going away and generating lots of new
ones. There is 
text in section 1 of the document justifying this large allocation.

   (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 has received review from a number of people whose interests
lie in this 
particular field, in addition to the normal WG responses.

   (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 shepherd has no concerns with this 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 addresses a limited part of the SIP community, but is of
significant 
interest in that part of the community. Within that limited community,
there is strong 
consensus behind the document.

   (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 2.08.10 report no NITS found
except:

  == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0
form
     feeds but 7 pages

which is a common fault which can be resolved readily during
publication.

   (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 contains only normative references. These references are
both standards 
track documents, are published and have been verified to be normative
references.

   (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 main purpose of this document is to create additional entries in an
existing IANA 
registry. The registry additions are clearly identified. The registry
requirements for 
this existing registry is standards track required, which this document
is.

   (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, and as
such there are no 
validation requirements.

   (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 document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Resource-Priority 
namespaces to meet the requirements of the US Defense Information
Systems Agency, and 
places these namespaces in the IANA registry.

Working group summary.

There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. 

Document Quality

The document has received review by experts in the field as well as
members of the SIP 
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://www.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