As SIP WG chair and the document shepherd for
draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag this is what I shall be doing with regard
to the ancillary document in this process...
I went to RFC 2026 and carefully read the section on proposed standard:
4.1.1 Proposed Standard
The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed
Standard". A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
level.
A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience
might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
before it advances.
Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
designation.
The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
Internet.
A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with
respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may
waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance
to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and
necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions.
Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature
specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain
experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification.
However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if
problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying
implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive
environment is not recommended.
My judgement is that at least the in terms of its draft, the SIP WG has
fulfilled the requirements for a request to publish a proposed standard.
It appears to me that any further decision about implementation rests
with the IESG, who should obviously take into account any submissions
made during the IESG last call process.
It is therefore my intent to proceed with the publish request for
draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag.
Regards
Keith
________________________________
From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Cc: Cullen Jennings; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [MMUSIC] ICE deployment data before LC for RFC
The work on ICE is truly impressive and so are the numerous I-Ds
associated with ICE.
However, before sending the <ice-17> I-D for LC to the IESG, it
would be prudent and responsible to the industry (that spends
considerable resources on ICE in good faith) implementing ICE, to either
(1) make it an informational RFC or (2) publish some deployment data
showing such items as:
* NAT scenarios that have been tested,
* The % of success,
* Performance, such as call setup delay using SIP.
I have not seen any such public data on ICE deployment, for
example with SIP. A private report has raised my concern about the
performance of ICE.
In the best IETF tradition, it would also help to have open
source code available for ICE, before declaring it a standard.
ICE is too important for the IETF (good work Jonathan and other
authors!) not to publish (1) deployment results and (2) publish open
source code as well.
The various nits discussed on the lists are only of secondary
importance to the LC compared to the above and would get resolved with
such a process anyway.
These are my personal two cents.
Henry Sinnreich
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.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
