Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-05
"DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
(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 protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip