(As WG chair) I have just requested publication of:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-02.txt The next stage for submitting comments is therefore the IESG last call. The PROTO writeup submitted with the publication request is as follows. Please feel free to respond if you consider any of the information incorrect. Regards Keith ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag- 02.txt: "Indicating Support for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) 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. (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 need for a SIP option tag developed out of discussions in the MMUSIC working group on draft-ietf-sip-ice. See discussion in IETF#67, and discussions on the IETF MMUSIC list (Christer Holmber, Michael Slavitch). In conformance with RFC 3427, this portion of the work was passed to the SIP working group. Document history: - draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-00 was submitted 1st March 2007 and expires 1st September 2007. - draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-01 was submitted 5th March 2007 and expires 6th September 2007. - draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-02 was submitted 19th June 2007 and expires 21st December 2007. WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-01 on 29th March 2007 with comments requested by 20th April 2007. Review was made and comments were received from: Peter Blatherwick, Jeroen van Bemmel, Kevin Johns. During the course of the work comments have also been made by: Ernst Horvath. (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? The document has been reviewed by appropriate SIP experts. It is not considered that any of the topics have significant architectural or protocol impact. (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. For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.04.09 report no NITS found except that draft- ietf-mmusic-ice-13 is now at a later version. While this needs correction, it should not cause a problem in allowing IESG last call to proceed. There are no dependent issues in the revisions that impact the technical contents of this draft. (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. The informative references have also been checked and found to be all informative. There are no downrefs in the document. (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 SIP option tag for ice. The IANA registry requirements are for a standards track document and this is a standards track document. The IANA considerations section in section 7.1 of the document provides for the appropriate revision to the registry in conformance with the format of that registry. * A media feature tag for ice. The IANA registry requirements are for IETF consensus which can here be represented by the contents of a standards track document. The IANA considerations section in section 7.2 of the document provides for the appropriate revision to the registry in conformance with the format of that registry. Note that while the presentation of the information is slightly different to that of the IANA registry, this is the format that all previous information for this registry has been presented in. (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 contains no material written in a formal language. (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 specification defines a media feature tag and an option tag for use with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). The media feature tag allows a UA to communicate to its registrar that it supports ICE. The option tag allows a User Agent (UA) to require support for ICE in order for a call to proceed. Working group summary. There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. The document came about as a result of discussions in the IETF MMUSIC working group to progress draft- ietf-mmusic-ice. Document Quality There has been no indication of implementation of this specific draft. There are known implementations of earlier versions of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice. 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://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
