Subject: [Insipid] Publication request for draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:34:33 +0000

I have just requested publication (i.e. sent to the IESG) of the INSIPID requirements document.

draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08

The writeup is as follows.

Regards

Keith

--------------------------
Document writeup for "Requirements for an End-to-End Session Identification in IP-Based Multimedia Communication Networks" draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

It is intended that the document be published as informational. It is not intended that this document should be applicable directly to an implementation, but rather identifies a set of requirements on which a future IETF solution will be built; the latter document will be standards track. In the cases where these requirements are a standalone document, they have traditionally been published as an informational RFC.
The document status is indicated in the document title page.

(2) 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.
This document specifies the requirements for an end-to-end session identifier in IP-based multimedia communication networks.  This identifier would enable endpoints, intermediate devices, and management and monitoring systems to identify a session end-to-end across multiple SIP devices, hops, and administrative domains.

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?

The document has achieved working group consensus.

One particular issue was on how much terminology to define in this document, and section 3 has been substantially worked upon within the working group.

There also has been significant discussion on the scoping of the work, and its applicability to more complex scenarios. In accordance with the charter, the work has been kept to the simpler scenarios, and the applicability to the more complex scenarios will be limited to whatever works as a result.
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?

There are no implementations as this is a requirements document. The working group is currently working on a solutions document in draft-ietf-insipid-session-id.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Keith Drage is the document shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo is the responsible area director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
Primarily a read through to ensure all the text is consistent with the remainder of the document, along with a check for editorial and idnit issues. The working group has gone several times through each requirement in the requirements clause in open discussion.

The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document does not need reviews from a particular or a from a broader perspective. The solution document might need such wider reviews, but this is not appropriate for a requirements document.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

The document shepherd has no concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Each author has confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures have been made.

Note that some authors have declared IPR on the related solutions document, but do not consider such a declaration impacts the requirements document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

IPR disclosures have been filed on this document. These have been identified in working group discussions, and further brought to the working group's attention during the working group last call. No concerns have been raised within the working group.

(9) 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 contents of this document have been extensively discussed amongst many individuals in this working group.
A significant number of individuals have indicated they had read the document during working group last call and had no further comments.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No such view has been expressed.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No idnits have been found and the document passes the boilerplate checks.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document contains no material of a formal nature requiring such review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

All normative references are published RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document is not of such a nature to change any other RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document has no IANA considerations, as it makes no changes to any IANA registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The document has no IANA considerations, as it makes no changes to any IANA registry.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The document contains no material of a formal nature requiring such review.