Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12
"DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
(As WG cochair)
A new version of this document has just been issued, which makes no
technical change but does tidy up some editorial issues that I
discovered while doing the publication request.
I intend to submit the publication request in 24 hours time with the
following PROTO writeup unless any further issues are discovered.
If anyone has any further implementation experience they would like to
share in particular, that would be useful information.
I am also currently preparing domain-certs, eku and session policy.
Information on implementation experience would be useful on those
documents.
Regards
Keith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
PROTO writeup for
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12:
"Connection Reuse 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.
Document history:
- draft-mahy-sip-connect-reuse-00 was submitted 1st June 2003 and
expired 30th
November 2003.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-00 was submitted 1st August 2003
and expired 30th
January 2004.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-01 was submitted 1st February 2004
and expired 1st
August 2004.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-02 was submitted 17th July 2004 and
expired 15th
January 2005.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-03 was submitted 22nd October 2004
and expired 22nd
April 2005.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-04 was submitted 14th July 2005 and
expired 15th
January 2006.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-05 was submitted 5th February 2006
and expired 5th
August 2006.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-06 was submitted 21st August 2006
and expired 22nd
February 2007.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-07 was submitted 6th October 2006
and expired 9th
April 2007.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-08 was submitted 16th October 2007
and expired 18th
April 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-09 was submitted 8th February 2008
and expires 11th
August 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-10 was submitted 13th May 2008 and
expires 14th
November 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-11 was submitted 14th July 2008 and
expires 15th
January 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12 was submitted 22nd October 2008
and expires 25th
April 2009.
There was a requirements phase of the work that was covered in:
- draft-mahy-sipping-connect-reuse-reqs-00 was submitted 19th June
2002 and expired
18th December 2002.
- draft-ietf-sipping-connect-reuse-reqs-00 was submitted 1st
October 2002 and
expired 1st April 2003.
These requirements were handed over to SIP without being published by
SIPPING. The
requirements also formed the basis for progressing
draft-ietf-sip-outbound, the scope of
which is separate from this document.
WGLC announced in the SIP WG on 26th October 2005 to complete 18th
November 2005 on -04
version. WGLC continuation announced 23rd October 2007 to complete 6th
November 2007 on
-08 version. Extended until 24th November 2007.
Review was made and comments were received from: Dale Worley, Hadriel
Kaplan, Jerry Yin.
Paul Kyzivat participated in the discussion on the resolution of these
comments. Earlier
reviews were made by Paul Kyzivat, Jonathan Rosenberg, Cullen Jennings,
Benny Prijono,
Matthew Gardiner.
(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 working group members. The
main issue with the
extended timescale of this document has been separating the scope from
that of outbound,
and identifying whether there was still a sufficient use case for
continuing with this
document. While the community of use is small compared to outbound, it
is still
significant and it was therefore agreed to proceed with the draft.
(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, apart from as follows.
The document has not had a separate security review, and that should
therefore occur.
(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?
As already indicated, there are two solutions in this area fulfilling
two different use
cases. draft-ietf-sip-outbound covers the majority of these use cases,
with a more
limited community of support of the remaining use cases covered by this
draft. However a
poll of the SIP WG showed that there was still a significant community
of interest to
justify proceeding with 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.
While the document defines a Via header field parameter, this has been
performed as a
SIP working group item, and therefore this draft is in conformance with
RFC 3968.
For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.09.01 report no NITS found.
(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 value that requires registration:
* alias header field parameter to the Via header field.
Section 12 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 one items in ABNF in section 7. These augment the
ABNF defined in
RFC 3261.
The contents of this ABNF is have been checked in conjunction with the
ABNF defined in
RFC 3261 by use of the checker defined in
http://www.apps.ietf.org/abnf.html and no
faults have been found.
(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 enables a pair of communicating proxies to reuse a
congestion-controlled
connection between themselves for sending requests in the forward and
backwards
direction. Because the connection is essentially aliased for requests
going in the
backwards direction, reuse should be predicated upon both the
communicating endpoints
authenticating themselves using X.509 certificates through TLS. For
this reason, we
only consider connection reuse for TLS over TCP and TLS over SCTP. A
single connection
should not be reused for the TCP or SCTP transport between two peers,
and this document
provides insight into why this is the case. As a remedy, it suggests
using two TCP
connections (or two SCTP associations), each opened pro-actively towards
the recipient
by the sender. Finally, this document also provides guidelines on
connection reuse and
virtual SIP servers and the interaction of connection reuse and DNS SRV
lookups in SIP.
Working group summary.
There is consensus in the working group to publish this document.
Document Quality
At SIPiT 18 there were recorded 6 implementations of connect-reuse. At
SIPiT 19
there were recorded 27 implementations of connect-reuse (30% of 90
implementations). This was the last SIPiT apparently polled for numbers
of
implementations of this extension.
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 protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip