I've been tagged as proto shepherd for outbound.
Here's a draft writeup. Please look through it. If there are no
objections, it will accompany the publication request to the IESG on
Friday.
--------
(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?
SIP chair Dean Willis is serving as the Document Shepherd for this
document. He has personally reviewed this document and believes it is
as ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication as it is ever
going to get.
(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 intensively reviewed within the working
group. It was formally reviewed by John Elwell:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg22870.html.
which resulted in several small changes.
(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 such 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.
The shepherd has no specific concerns with 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?
Working group consensus is quite strong for this document. It was
considered "high profile" during the entire cycle, and has been very
thoroughly discussed. Numerous design changes were made in the process
in order to accomodate various points of view.
(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 unaware of any extreme discontent with this version of
the draft. A previous version that did not require two "outbound
proxy" entries was disparaged on-list, but the document was revised to
accomodate this issue.
(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 appears to satisfy the various checklist nits.
(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 divided. There is one reference to a
draft that has been revised, but this does not impact the document.
(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?
This document specifies seven IANA actions that appear to be valid and
complete. It defines no new registry or expert review process.
(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 shepherd verified the ABNF using Bill Fenner's checker.
(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 document defines a n extension to the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) that provides for persistent and reusable connections between
SIP User Agents and SIP Proxy Servers. In particular, this allows
proxy servers to initiate TCP connections or to send asynchronous UDP
datagrams to User Agents in order to deliver requests. However, in a
large number of real deployments, many practical considerations, such
as the existence of firewalls and Network Address Translators (NATs)
or the use of TLS with server-provided certificates, prevent servers
from connecting to User Agents in this way. This specification
defines behaviors for User Agents, registrars and proxy servers that
allow requests to be delivered on existing connections established by
the User Agent. It also defines keep alive behaviors needed to keep
NAT bindings open and specifies the usage of multiple connections from
the User Agent to its Registrar.
Working Group Summary
The working group process on this document was exceptionally long. The
first WG version of the draft appeared in the summer of 2005. Working
group last call initiated in the summer of 2006 and extended until the
summer of 2008, requring several iterations of the draft and the
assignment of Francois Audet as a "process champion" for the draft
within the working group. Most delays seem to have been related to
slow cycle time on the part of the authors, but the process was also
delayed by a number of changes occurring during the review cycle.
Particular sticking points included the keepalive mechanism and a
requirement for binding to multiple outbound proxies if so
configured. The latter was eventually resolved by a widely-accepted
compromise, but the keepalive topic is still being debated. Although
there is a strong consensus for the keepalive technique specified in
this document, there is some reason to believe that there may be a
need for the keeplaive mechanism independently of the outbound
relationship. There is currently a draft proposing such a mechanism.
This suggests that it might have been more effective to document the
outbound binding and keepalive mechanisms independently.
Document Quality
There are numerous implementations of the protocol, and it has been
tested at SIPit events since 2005.
_______________________________________________
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
