We have requested publication of this WG effort as a BCP. I'd like to
thank Nils for volunteering to serve as the draft shepherd, and for
preparing most of the writeup below.
--
Dean Willis, SIP WG co-chair.
Writeup follows:
The SIP working group would like to request publication of draft-ietf-
sip-record-route-fix-06. This is a product of the SIP working group and
is intended for Best Current Practice status.
Nils Ohlmeier <[email protected]> will serve as the draft shepherd,
supported by SIP working group chair Dean Willis.
A write-up, prepared by Nils, is attached.
[This template version is dated September 17, 2008.]
(for draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-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 Nils Ohlmeier. 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 in-depth reviews from working group members with
no concerns.
(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?
As the document describes a best current practice which is widely
deployed and the document got several reviews 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 believe the described technique should be documented and I have no
concerns with the document.
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?
The WG consensus appears to be strong.
(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 has an IANA considerations section with no actions
for the IANA, which matches the body of the document.
(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?
SIP messages in examples have been manually checked and appear to be
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.
Multi-homed SIP proxies (having two or more interfaces) raise special
requirements when handling SIP requests that have different ingress
and egress interfaces. One technique that has been widely deployed is
to insert a single Record-Route header describing the egress interface.
When another request in the same dialog then traverses the proxy in a
reverse direction, the proxy must edit the headers to reflect the new
egress interface. This document formalizes another technique that has
also been widely deployed and found to be simpler and more effective.
Using this technique, the proxy inserts two record-route headers, one
for the ingress interface and one for the egress interface. This keeps
the
route symmetric, such that it can be traversed in the reverse direction
without requiring examination and editing by the proxy, thereby
reducing system complexity and processing load in the proxy.
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?
The biggest discussion around this document was which status this
document
should get. The working group decided to target for Best Current
Practice
and against a normative update of RFC3261. Work on this document began
in
March 2007 and the WGLC was held in July 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 Record-Route handling
in multi homed scenarios (including traversal between different sub
networks and changes of transport or IP protocol). The described
technique is widely deployed in several SIP proxies already.
This document has been reviewed by many participants over the lifetime
of the document, by the following members of the WG:
- Francois Audet
- Jonathan Rosenberg
- Cullen Jennings
- Paul Kyzivat
- Robert Sparks
- Nils Ohlmeier
_______________________________________________
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
