We have requested publication of draft-ietf-sip-body-handling-06.
I'd like to thank Theo Zourzouvillys for volunteering to serve as the
draft shepherd. This represents a departure from prior practice, in
that we've traditionally had the chairs act as shepherds. I recently
realized that sharing the load is a good way to increase our pool of
administratively-trained folks, and get the job done faster.
The pub-request writeup, prepared by Theo, follows.
--
Dean
-----------
The SIP working group would like to request publication of draft-ietf-
sip-body-handling-06. This is a product of the SIP working group and
is intended for standards track.
Theo Zourzouvillys <[email protected]> will serve as the draft shepherd,
supported by SIP working group chair Dean Willis.
A write-up, prepared by Theo, is attached. Note that there is an
Instruction to the RFC Editor attached to correct two minor typos in
XML and example SIP messages that prevent validation.
[This template version is dated September 17, 2008.]
(for draft-ietf-sip-body-handling-06)
(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 for this document is Theo Zourzouvillys. I have
read
this version of the draft and believe 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?
This document has had solid, in-depth reviews from working group
members.
(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?
There are no concerns.
(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.
I have no concerns with this document, and believe there is a need for
it.
There have been no IPR disclosures for 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?
WG consensus appears to be solid.
(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.)
No one has expressed any discontent with this document.
(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 document shepherd has personally verified that this version of the
document satisfies all of the ID nits, bar a warning about legal
boilerplate about pre-RFC5378 work.
(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 been split into normative and informative references.
All normative references are stable.
(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 [RFC5226]. 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?
This document contains two considerations for IANA. in the IANA
considerations
section (section 12):
* Registration of the 'by-reference' Disposition Type in the
existing IANA
registry for Content-Disposition 'Handling Parameter Values',
created
by RFC3204 at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-cont-disp
* request an update to the 'handling' parameter in the existing 'SIP
Header
Field Parameters and Parameter Values' registry created by
RFC3968, at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters
Neither of these registries require Expert Review for additions or
modifications.
(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 XML in figure 2 does not validate due to a missing closing XML '>'
on
the 'resource-lists' element (line 250), and the Content-Length on
line 230
is also incorrect. Please see [Instructions for RFC Editor] for
instructions
to correct this issue.
SIP messages and SDP bodies in examples have been manually checked and
appear
valid.
(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.
This document specifies how message bodies should be handled in SIP.
Additionally, this document specifies SIP user agent support for MIME
(Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) in message bodies.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
There is consensus in the working group to publish this document, and is
targeted for Standards Track. Work on this document began in May 2007,
and was adopted as a working group item in August 2007. WGLC was issued
in June 2008.
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?
This document specifically addresses an area of SIP that has been an
interoperability problem in the past. The SIPit interoperability
events have
seen many problems in the area of interoperability of MIME handling.
This document has been reviews by many participants over the lifetime
of the
document, by the following members of the WG:
- Paul Kyzivat
- John Elwell
- Francois Audet
- Dan Wing
- Eric Burger
- Dale Worley
- Jonathan Rosenberg
- Cullen Jennings
- Adam Roach
Additionally, an extensive APPS area review of the document was been
performed
by Dave Crocker in an eary version of the this document.
[Instructions for RFC Editor]
The XML in figure 2 is invalid due to a missing '>'. The Content-
Length in
the same message is also invalid.
Please replace line 230, which is currently:
Content-Length: 617
with:
Content-Length: 619
Please replace line 250, which is currently:
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists"
with:
<resource-lists xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:resource-lists">
_______________________________________________
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
