Session Peering Provisioning (SPP) Protocol over SOAP
draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-08-08
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-05-26
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-05-05
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-04-20
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-04-18
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2016-04-18
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-04-07
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-04-05
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-04-04
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-04-04
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-04-04
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-04-04
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-04-04
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-04-04
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-04-04
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-04-04
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-04-04
|
09 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-04-04
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working through all the commentary, and bringing this to a conclusion. |
2016-04-04
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2016-04-04
|
09 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-09.txt |
2015-10-14
|
08 | (System) | Notify list changed from drinks-chairs@ietf.org, syed.ali@neustar.biz to (None) |
2015-08-07
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot discuss] There are ballot comments from Spencer, Stephen, Barry, and Kathleen that still need to be addressed. (Even though Stephen cleared his DISCUSS, I … [Ballot discuss] There are ballot comments from Spencer, Stephen, Barry, and Kathleen that still need to be addressed. (Even though Stephen cleared his DISCUSS, I think the remaining comments need to be considered.) |
2015-08-07
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-07-22
|
07 | Alexander Mayrhofer | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-07-22
|
08 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-08.txt |
2015-07-02
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2015-03-25
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Ben Campbell |
2015-03-25
|
07 | Richard Barnes | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-03-23
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the response to my discuss, since the WG did think it through, I've cleared. ----- OLD COMMENTS below - General: why … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the response to my discuss, since the WG did think it through, I've cleared. ----- OLD COMMENTS below - General: why would one want to ever run this protocol without TLS? Did the WG consider saying that TLS MUST be used? Again, if you tell me you thought about it, I'll just clear. - 7.1.2: The framework uses "Identifier" but here you use "Identity" - it'd be better to be consistent I think and "Identifier" is a lot better. - section 11 is weaker than the corresponding section in the framework draft. Two things: 1) why not point back to the framework here? 2) shouldn't you say which of the vulns/mitigations called out in the framework are relevant or mitigated here? |
2015-03-23
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-03-19
|
07 | Richard Barnes | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation - Defer::AD Followup |
2015-03-02
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Early review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-03-01
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-02-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation - Defer |
2015-02-19
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-02-18
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] -- Section 4 -- Implementations compliant with this document MUST use HTTP 1.1 [RFC2616] or higher. Also, implementations SHOULD … [Ballot comment] -- Section 4 -- Implementations compliant with this document MUST use HTTP 1.1 [RFC2616] or higher. Also, implementations SHOULD use persistent connections. You could remove "compliant with this document". But more importantly, the "SHOULD" is not an interoperability requirement. I'd rather see "implementations should use persistent connections for the performance reasons specified above." But this is non-blocking, and there's no need to discuss it. Also, RFC 2616 is obsolete. The current reference for HTTP 1.1 is RFC 7230, and this reference needs to be changed to that. -- Section 5 -- I support Stephen's DISCUSS here. Further on what he says in his comment, this MUST requirement locks you into Digest for all time, regardless of what other authentication mechanisms might be defined and deployed later. That doesn't seem wise. If the real point here is that there are two mechanisms (Basic and Digest), and you want to use Digest because you don't want Basic, then maybe that's how you should say it: ban Basic rather than requiring Digest. |
2015-02-18
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba |
2015-02-18
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-02-18
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] -- Section 4 -- Implementations compliant with this document MUST use HTTP 1.1 [RFC2616] or higher. Also, implementations SHOULD … [Ballot comment] -- Section 4 -- Implementations compliant with this document MUST use HTTP 1.1 [RFC2616] or higher. Also, implementations SHOULD use persistent connections. You could remove "compliant with this document". But more importantly, the "SHOULD" is not an interoperability requirement. I'd rather see "implementations should use persistent connections for the performance reasons specified above." But this is non-blocking, and there's no need to discuss it. -- Section 5 -- I support Stephen's DISCUSS here. Further on what he says in his comment, this MUST requirement locks you into Digest for all time, regardless of what other authentication mechanisms might be defined and deployed later. That doesn't seem wise. If the real point here is that there are two mechanisms (Basic and Digest), and you want to use Digest because you don't want Basic, then maybe that's how you should say it: ban Basic rather than requiring Digest. |
2015-02-18
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-02-17
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document, but SOAP, really? I thought we had moved on. |
2015-02-17
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2015-02-17
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-02-16
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] All editorial. Note that I did not review sections 9 & 10. 1 or 2: Might be nice to define "SPPPoS" for "SPP … [Ballot comment] All editorial. Note that I did not review sections 9 & 10. 1 or 2: Might be nice to define "SPPPoS" for "SPP Protocol over SOAP". Would save a lot of space and make things easier to read. 3: OLD This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher. NEW SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher are RECOMMENDED by this document. END 4: s/compliant with this document/of this protocol 5ff: I don't see how the word "conforming" adds anything to this document. Instead of "conforming SPPPoS clients/servers MUST do X", why not say "SPPPoS clients/servers MUST do X"? 7: Title: s/SPP Protocol SOAP Data Structures/SPP Protocol over SOAP Data Structures |
2015-02-16
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] (resending after changing the notification to @tools.ietf.org) In this text: This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 … [Ballot comment] (resending after changing the notification to @tools.ietf.org) In this text: This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher. I'm not sure why these are RECOMMENDS, but more to the point, am I reading this that there's no mandatory-to-implement version of SOAP or WSDL for SPP over SOAP? I note that you have HTTP/1.1 or higher as a "MUST use" in Section 4. |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Notification list changed to drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, syed.ali@neustar.biz, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org from drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org, syed.ali@neustar.biz, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@ietf.org |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Telechat date has been changed to 2015-02-19 from 2015-02-05 |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] In this text: This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher. I'm not sure … [Ballot comment] In this text: This document RECOMMENDS SOAP 1.2 [SOAPREF] or higher, and WSDL 1.1 [WSDLREF] or higher. I'm not sure why these are RECOMMENDS, but more to the point, am I reading this that there's no mandatory-to-implement version of SOAP or WSDL for SPP over SOAP? I note that you have HTTP/1.1 or higher as a "MUST use" in Section 4. |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] I just want to check one thing... Section 5: why is there a MUST for Digest auth? What'd be wrong with TLS client … [Ballot discuss] I just want to check one thing... Section 5: why is there a MUST for Digest auth? What'd be wrong with TLS client auth here? I do wish the WG had considered some alternative to passwords, which don't make so much sense in this use-case. (BTW: You could chose HOBA here I guess, but that's still in the RFC editor queue and not supported by libraries so perhaps doesn't suit. But it'd work. I'm an author of the HOBA spec though, so I'm biased:-) Anyway - can you tell me if the WG considered dropping passwords entirely and mandating TLS client auth be implemented? If the WG seriously considered TLS client auth already, I'll just clear. |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - General: why would one want to ever run this protocol without TLS? Did the WG consider saying that TLS MUST be used? … [Ballot comment] - General: why would one want to ever run this protocol without TLS? Did the WG consider saying that TLS MUST be used? Again, if you tell me you thought about it, I'll just clear. - 7.1.2: The framework uses "Identifier" but here you use "Identity" - it'd be better to be consistent I think and "Identifier" is a lot better. - section 11 is weaker than the corresponding section in the framework draft. Two things: 1) why not point back to the framework here? 2) shouldn't you say which of the vulns/mitigations called out in the framework are relevant or mitigated here? |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-02-05
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-02-04
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-02-04
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-02-04
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I have some comments and suggestions that I'd like to be considered: Section 4: Instead of … [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I have some comments and suggestions that I'd like to be considered: Section 4: Instead of HTTP(S), I'd prefer to see HTTP/TLS. Would that cause any heartburn? It would make the text consistent with the next section. Please change SSL to TLS in this section as well. Section 5: OK, I see you have TLS listed here, along with a minimum version by reference to the RFC for TLS 1.2. All good, thanks. A pointer to the BCP from UTA: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp/ following the last sentence, might be helpful. It's in IETF last call now, so it shouldn't hold up this draft and could even be done as an informational reference so it won't matter that it's not published yet. Alternatively, this reference could be in section 11.1. Section 7.3 Is a response code needed when the XML does not validate to the schema or other requirements that may exist in addition to schema conformance? Or does this happen somewhere else or perhaps this should be stated as part of one of the existing response codes? |
2015-02-04
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-02-03
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2015-02-03
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Roni Even's Gen-ART review raised some questions that should be answered, I think. |
2015-02-03
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-02-03
|
07 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2015-02-02
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-02-05 |
2015-02-02
|
07 | Richard Barnes | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-02-02
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Ballot has been issued |
2015-02-02
|
07 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2015-02-02
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-01-22
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-01-14
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-01-14
|
07 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the ns registry of the IETF XML Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry a new namespace is to be registered as follows: ID: sppf:soap:1 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:sppf:soap:1 Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] NOTE: As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2015-01-13
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2015-01-13
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2015-01-09
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2015-01-09
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Session Peering Provisioning (SPP) Protocol … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Session Peering Provisioning (SPP) Protocol over SOAP) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Data for Reachability of Inter/tra-NetworK SIP WG (drinks) to consider the following document: - 'Session Peering Provisioning (SPP) Protocol over SOAP' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-01-22. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Session Peering Provisioning Framework (SPPF) specifies the data model and the overall structure to provision session establishment data into Session Data Registries and SIP Service Provider data stores. To utilize this framework one needs a transport protocol. Given that Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) is currently widely used for messaging between elements of such provisioning systems, this document specifies the usage of SOAP (via HTTPS) as the transport protocol for SPPF. The benefits include leveraging prevalent expertise, and a higher probability that existing provisioning systems will be able to easily migrate to using an SPPF based protocol. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Last call was requested |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Richard Barnes | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-01-08
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-10-23
|
07 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-ietf-drinks-sppp-over-soap/ |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-spp-protocol-over-soap (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-spp-protocol-over-soap (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The request is to publish this document as a “Proposed Standard”. This document specifies a SOAP (over HTTPS) transport protocol for the Session Peering Provisioning Framework (SPPF; draft-ietf-drinks-spp- framework). Given that SPPF is a Proposed Standard, and requires a transport protocol for implementation, such as the one specified in this document, the WG is in strong consensus that this is the proper type of RFC. And yes, this type is indicated in the title page header. (2) 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 provides a SOAP (over HTTPS) transport protocol for implementing the Session Peering Provisioning Framework (SPPF; draft -ietf-drinks-spp-framework). SPPF specifies the data model and the overall structure to provision session establishment data into Session Data Registries and SIP Service Provider data stores. Working Group Summary: The chairs believe that there is consensus behind this document. There has not been any disagreement on the content of this I-D . Some participants of the working group (and external observers) have periodically expressed concern over the use of SOAP and questioned why RESTful web service is not being used. The Working Group has discussed this on multiple occasions and the act that more provisioning systems that are meant to employ SPPF already use SOAP, it is the one that is currently in demand for practical use. It is important to note that SPPF is limited to identifying the data model specification. Should the need arise for a RESTful service based transport protocol specification , or even a binary protocol for various reasons, it can be derived from the SPPF in the future. Therefore , the WG Chairs believe that this has resulted in general consensus to progress this document for consideration as an RFC. Document Quality: A few working group participants have developed a prototype-level implementation, involving programmers who were not involved in the framework or transport protocol design efforts. Lessons learned from that implementation were fed back into the documents. Furthermore, the SPPF design team includes several potential implementers, who have verified the I-D content as ready for implementation. Personnel: Syed W. Ali is serving the role of Document Shepherd, and Richard Barnes is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd . If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd performed a review prior to publication request, and believes that it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? While there are no concerns regarding the contents or the requirements, the document shepherd recommends that data modeling experts, esp., those well versed in SOAP and WSDL be invited to review this document. The primary reason for this is that previous “SOAP and WSDL” expert reviewers were involved in the creation of this document, but may have overlooked nuances. The secondary reason is that, while we had non-WG member reviews, they were not necessarily SOAP experts. (Data Model experts were invited, but were unable to make time during the WGLC process.) (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Yes; see response to (4). (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. No, all my concerns (e.g., IANA registry for namespaces) that were raised have been addressed. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Each author has confirmed that there are no IPR claims about the contents in this draft, and that they are not aware of such claims. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR claims have been filed, that the Document Shepherd is aware of. (9) 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? Within the Design Team, solid consensus was sought for each issue, and minutes from the weekly conference calls were sent back to the WG mailing list. Given the small size of the WG (~35 participants during the last meeting) , most active participants (~8) were also part of the Design Team, making for fewer discussions outside of the calls. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or other wise 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 publicly available.) No appeal was threatened, nor did anybody indicate extreme discontent. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There is one warning: Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SOAPREF'; which is acceptable. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The previous document shepherd (Sumanth Channabasappa) has asked for specific XML expert review (from Peter Saint-Andre), but this may be done as part of IETF LC. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, references have been split in normative an informative references. (14) 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 plan for their completion? This document depends on the SPPF document, which will need to accepted prior-to, or at the same time. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. However, see note under point (11). (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document will not change the status of any existing RFC. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document uses URNs to describe XML Namespaces and XML Schemas, and pursuant to RFC3688, requests registration of: URN: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:sppf:soap:1 The document does not create any new IANA registries (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. n/a (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The authors have performed validation; additionally an automated NITS review was performed. The previous document shepherd (Sumanth Channabasappa) has requested review from an external expert (Peter St. Andre) some time ago, but there has been no feedback regarding this review yet. Furthermore, Ning Zhang has volunteered to perform a review, providing feedback during the IETF LC. |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Changed document writeup |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to "Syed Ali" <syed.ali@neustar.biz> |
2014-10-23
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Document shepherd changed to Syed Ali |
2014-10-22
|
07 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07.txt |
2014-04-22
|
06 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-06.txt |
2013-10-21
|
05 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-05.txt |
2013-07-12
|
04 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-04.txt |
2012-10-22
|
03 | Vikas Bhatia | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-03.txt |
2012-08-15
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2012-08-15
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2012-08-15
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Sam Hartman was rejected |
2012-08-10
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Hartman |
2012-08-10
|
02 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Hartman |
2012-07-16
|
02 | Alexander Mayrhofer | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-02.txt |
2012-03-12
|
01 | Vikas Bhatia | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-01.txt |
2012-01-30
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-00.txt |