(As WG chair) I have just requested publication of the above draft.
The PROTO writeup submitted with this document is attached. regards Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------- PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-session-policy- framework-05.txt: "A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Policies" (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? Document history: - draft-hilt-sipping-session-policy-00 was submitted 29th September 2003 and expired on 23rd March 2004. - draft-hilt-sipping-session-indep-policy-00 was submitted 19th October 2003 and expired on 18th April 2004. - draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-00 was submitted 19th October 2003 and expired on 18th April 2004. - draft-hilt-sipping-session-indep-policy-01 was submitted 17th May 2004 and expired on 15th November 2004. - draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-01 was submitted 24th October 2004 and expired on 24th April 2005. - draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-02 was submitted 11th February 2005 and expired on 15th August 2005. - draft-hilt-sipping-session-spec-policy-03 was submitted 12th July 2005 and expired on 13th January 2006. - draft-hilt-sipping-session-policy-framework-00 was submitted 16th October 2005 and expired on 19th April 2006. - draft-hilt-sipping-session-policy-framework-01 was submitted 5th March 2006 and expired on 6th September 2006. - draft-ietf-sipping-session-policy-framework-00 was submitted 4th April 2006 and expired on 6th October 2006. - draft-ietf-sipping-session-policy-framework-01 was submitted 23rd June 2006 and expired on 25th December 2006. - draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-00 was submitted 13th October 2006 and expired on 16 April 2007. - draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-01 was submitted 9th February 2007 and expired on 13th August 2007. - draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-02 was submitted 22nd August 2007 and expired on 23rd February 2008. - draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-03 was submitted 27th April 2008 and expires on 29th October 2008. - draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-04 was submitted 22nd August 2008 and expires on 23rd February 2009. - draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework-05 was submitted 1st November 2008 and expires on 5th May 2009. The early stimulus for this work came from discussions at the joint IETF/3GPP workshop held in San Francisco in January 2003, where it was desired to find a mechanism for the network to provide policy without the network modifying the SDP of an offer/answer exchange in order to do so. The work has developed from requirements specified in: draft-ietf-sipping-session- policy-req-02. WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-01 on 21st May 2007 with comments requested by 11th June 2007. Review was made and comments were received from: SIPPING appointed special reviewers Alan Johnston, Bob Benfield, Roni Even and Flemming Andreasen for the set of documents in this package. During the course of the work comments have also been made by: Roni Even, Bob Penfield, Mary Barnes, Shida Schubert, Andrew Allen, Yuxia Zhang. The document was moved from the SIPPING WG to the SIP WG in conformance with RFC 3427 because it defines new header fields and an option tag. Prior review and discussion therefore took place in the SIPPING group. The document is closely related with: - draft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-05; - draft-ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset-06. (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? While the document has been reviewed by appropriate SIP experts, the level of readership of the SIP working group has apparently been moderate. This may lead one to assume that the contents for this solution are correct, but potentially there could have been other solutions out there that have been missed. (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. While the document defines a new SIP option tag, and two new SIP header fields, these have been performed as a SIP working group item, and therefore this draft is in conformance with RFC 3427. For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.09.01 report no NITS found. Summary: 0 errors (**), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). (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. (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 new SIP header field Policy-Id - a new SIP header field Policy-Contact - a new option tag policy - a new Policy-Contact header field parameter non-cacheable Section 6 of the document provides the IANA considerations section, and this defines the above. (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 defines two items in ABNF, the Policy-Id header field and the Policy- Contact header field. These augment the ABNF defined in RFC 3261. Both these items pass Bill Fenner's ABNF parser in the tools webpage. (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. Proxy servers play a central role as an intermediary in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) as they define and impact policies on call routing, rendezvous, and other call features. This document specifies a framework for SIP session policies that provides a standard mechanism by which a proxy can define or influence policies on sessions, such as the codecs or media types to be used. It defines a model, an overall architecture and new protocol mechanisms for session policies. Working group summary. There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. The early stimulus for this work came from discussions at the joint IETF/3GPP workshop held in San Francisco in January 2003. Document Quality There has been no indication of implementation. 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://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
