I believe we're about ready to send the XCAP Event Package draft to
the IESG. I believe I will be serving as the Document Shepherd. As
shepherd, I get to do the writeup that accompanies the draft onto the
iESG docket. Here's my working draft of that writeup. If you have
anything to add, please do do.
(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 SIP working group chair Dean Willis. He has
personally reviewed this version of the document and believes it is
ready for forwrding 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 thoroughly reviewed in the working
group. Further review was requested and received from the Open Mobile
Alliance's Presence and Availability working group, which is expected
to be a major user of the specification. Specialized event-package
review was provided by Adam Roach, author of the SIP Events
specification RFC 3325.
(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 shepherd has no concerns that the document requires additional or
broader review.
(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 shepherd has no specific concerns with this document, and is
unaware of any IPR disclosure related to 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?
There is strong working group consensus behind this document. It is
the evolution of several years work related to use of XCAP for
configuration delivery and for managing subscriber and buddy lists.
(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.)
The shepherd is not aware of any significant discontent related to
this draft.
(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 verified that the draft satisfies all ID nits to the best
of his ability. It does have one slightly stale reference to
draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff-08 which is now in -09, but this does not
impact the 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].
References are appropriately split. The draft does depend on
draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff and on draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags, both
of which should be ready for review in approximately the same time
frame. There are no known downrefs.
(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 considerations appear to be correct.
(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 shepherd verified the BNF and XML. Since the XML was verified with
the author's own popular XML verifier, no errors were really expected.
(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
The XCAP (XML Confgiration Access Protocol, RFC 4825) protocol
provides for change control on structured data. This specification
provides a SIP Event Paackage (RFC 3325) that can be used to monitor
changes to an XCAP document. Change notifications may include
differential changes expressed using the XCAP-Diff format described in
draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff. This specification also provides for
initial synchronization between a stored version of an XCAP document
and a remote copy being monitored using the protocol of thsi
specification.
Working Group Summary
This specification developed out of the larger body of configuration
management work related to SIP (RFC 3261). In particular, it relates
to XCAP (RFC 4825) and the SIP Configuration Framework
(draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework). The content of this
specification was split off from the configuration framework document
about two years ago, and has progressed indepdently.
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?
Document Quality
There are existing implementations of earlier versions of the
protocol, and a significant number of vendors have committed to
implementation of the specification in the context of the Open Mobile
Alliances's Push-to-Talk Over Cellularspecification. Adam Roach
provided specific guidance and review on the SIP Event Package aspects
of this specification.
_______________________________________________
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
