Subject: [Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-05

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 00:04:02 +0100

(As WG chair)

I have just requested publication of the above draft.

The PROTO writeup submitted with this document is attached.

regards

Keith

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

PROTO writeup for
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-
framework-05.txt: "A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Session Policies"

   (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-hilt-sipping-session-policy-00 was submitted 29th
September 2003 and 
expired on 23rd March 2004.
-	draft-hilt-sipping-session-indep-policy-00 was submitted 19th
October 2003 and 
expired on 18th April 2004.
-	draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-00 was submitted 19th
October 2003 and 
expired on 18th April 2004.
-	draft-hilt-sipping-session-indep-policy-01 was submitted 17th
May 2004 and 
expired on 15th November 2004.
-	draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-01 was submitted 24th
October 2004 and 
expired on 24th April 2005.
-	draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-02 was submitted 11th
February 2005 and 
expired on 15th August 2005.
-	draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-03 was submitted 12th
July 2005 and 
expired on 13th January 2006.
-	draft-hilt-sipping-session-policy-framework-00 was submitted
16th October 2005 
and expired on 19th April 2006.
-	draft-hilt-sipping-session-policy-framework-01 was submitted 5th
March 2006 and 
expired on 6th September 2006.
-	draft-ietf-sipping-session-policy-framework-00 was submitted 4th
April 2006 and 
expired on 6th October 2006.
-	draft-ietf-sipping-session-policy-framework-01 was submitted
23rd June 2006 and 
expired on 25th December 2006.
-	draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-00 was submitted 13th
October 2006 and 
expired on 16 April 2007.
-	draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-01 was submitted 9th
February 2007 and 
expired on 13th August 2007.
-	draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-02 was submitted 22nd
August 2007 and 
expired on 23rd February 2008.
-	draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-03 was submitted 27th
April 2008 and 
expires on 29th October 2008.
-	draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-04 was submitted 22nd
August 2008 and 
expires on 23rd February 2009.
-	draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-05 was submitted 1st
November 2008 and 
expires on 5th May 2009.

The early stimulus for this work came from discussions at the joint
IETF/3GPP workshop 
held in San Francisco in January 2003, where it was desired to find a
mechanism for the 
network to provide policy without the network modifying the SDP of an
offer/answer 
exchange in order to do so.

The work has developed from requirements specified in:
draft-ietf-sipping-session-
policy-req-02.

WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-01 on
21st May 2007 
with comments requested by 11th June 2007.

Review was made and comments were received from: SIPPING appointed
special reviewers 
Alan Johnston, Bob Benfield, Roni Even and Flemming Andreasen for the
set of documents 
in this package. During the course of the work comments have also been
made by:  Roni 
Even, Bob Penfield, Mary Barnes, Shida Schubert, Andrew Allen, Yuxia
Zhang.

The document was moved from the SIPPING WG to the SIP WG in conformance
with RFC 3427 
because it defines new header fields and an option tag. Prior review and
discussion 
therefore took place in the SIPPING group.

The document is closely related with:

-	draft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-05;
-	draft-ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset-06.

   (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?

While the document has been reviewed by appropriate SIP experts, the
level of readership 
of the SIP working group has apparently been moderate. This may lead one
to assume that 
the contents for this solution are correct, but potentially there could
have been other 
solutions out there that have been missed.

   (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.

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

For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.09.01 report no NITS found.

Summary: 0 errors (**), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

   (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.

   (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 new SIP header field Policy-Id
-	a new SIP header field Policy-Contact
-	a new option tag policy
-	a new Policy-Contact header field parameter non-cacheable

Section 6 of the document provides the IANA considerations section, and
this defines the 
above.

   (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 defines two items in ABNF, the Policy-Id header field and
the Policy-
Contact header field. These augment the ABNF defined in RFC 3261.

Both these items pass Bill Fenner's ABNF parser in the tools webpage.

   (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.

Proxy servers play a central role as an intermediary in the Session
Initiation Protocol 
(SIP) as they define and impact policies on call routing, rendezvous,
and other call 
features.  This document specifies a framework for SIP session policies
that provides a 
standard mechanism by which a proxy can define or influence policies on
sessions, such 
as the codecs or media types to be used.  It defines a model, an overall
architecture 
and new protocol mechanisms for session policies.

Working group summary.

There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. The
early stimulus for 
this work came from discussions at the joint IETF/3GPP workshop held in
San Francisco in 
January 2003.

Document Quality

There has been no indication of implementation.

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