On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol
> Working Group of the IETF.
>
>
> Title : Certificate Management Service for The Session
> Initiation Protocol (SIP)
> Author(s) : C. Jennings, et al.
> Filename : draft-ietf-sip-certs-05.txt
> Pages : 30
> Date : 2008-02-01
>
I've requested publication for this draft.
Here's the writeup I submitted along with the pub request, should you
be interested.
----------------
The SIP working group hereby requests publication of the document
draft-ietf-sip-certs-05 as a Proposed Standard.
(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?
The Document Shepherd is working group chair Dean Willis, who has
personally reviewed this version of the document and believes it is
ready for forwarding to the 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 document has been extensively reviewed within the working group
and by external reviewers, including security area review.
(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?
No further review required.
(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.
No concerns.
(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?
This document enjoys a high level of working group concurrence,
relative to the majority of security-related documents. Essentially
the working group as a whole agree with the document, including the
ones who actually understand it.
(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)
This shepherd is unaware of any discontent.
(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?
The shepherd applied idnits 2.06.01. Note that the document does
contain a downref to RFC 2898. This downref is explained in the
references section of the document and appears to be justified under
the procedures of RFC 3967. The following text is quoted from the
document:
This reference is normative. The mechanisms used in this
specification from RFC2898 are stable and sutable for use
in a standards track specification. RFC2898 has been
used
as a normative reference in several prior standards track
documents including RFC3185, RFC3370, RFC3962, and
RFC4656.
The document also received appropriate review from the MIME Types
alias and SIP events alias.
(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].
References are properly split, with one valid downward reference as
described above.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration 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 Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
The IANA actions section appears to be correct, and has undergone
appropriate expert review.
(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 appears to contain no 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
This draft defines a Credential Service that allows Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agents (UAs) to use a SIP event
package to discover the certificates of other users. This mechanism
allows user agents that want to contact a given Address-of-Record
(AOR) to retrieve that AOR's certificate by subscribing to the
Credential Service, which returns an authenticated response
containing that certificate. The Credential Service also allows
users to store and retrieve their own certificates and private keys.
Several operational modes are defined, wherein the credential service
may act only as a distributor of the public key, may also act as a
distributor of the encrypted private key, or as the repository and
distributor of both the public and private key.
Working Group Summary
The working group process for this draft was unusually long, spanning
several years.
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?
We are currently not aware of any publicly announced implementations
of this specification, although one can be built relatively trivially
on top of general purpose SIP Events servers, and we are aware of at
least one internal prototype implemented in this manner.
MIME type review was non-controversial and was initiated on March 12,
2007. Björn Höhrmann raised several points, which were resolved in
the -04 version of this specification.
SIP Events review was performed by Adam Roach, with several issues
being noted and resolved in -03 of this specification.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list http://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
