Correct Transaction Handling for 2xx Responses to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INVITE Requests
draft-ietf-sipcore-invfix-01

[Ballot comment]
It would be useful to change the page headers from 'invfix' to something more explicative like 'Fix for 2xx Responses to SIP Invite Requests' or such.

[Ballot comment]
Spell out first instance of DOS.

As noted in the secdir review/response, please add a pointer to Section 26.3.4 of RFC 3261 to point out DOS issues.

[Ballot discuss]
As pointed out by IANA, the "IANA Considerations" section should
  update the "Method and Response Codes" registry in the parts
  concerning the INVITE method.

IANA questions/comments:

While the IANA Considerations section says that the document doesn't
need any actions, it appears to us that this document should be added as
a reference to the following registration at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters

Registry Name: Method and Response Codes

OLD:

Methods Reference
------- ---------
INVITE [RFC3261]

NEW:

Methods Reference
------- ---------
INVITE [RFC3261][RFC-ietf-sipcore-invfix-01]

Is this correct?

(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?

Adam Roach is the document shepherd. He has personally reviewed this
version of the document, and believes that it is ready 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?

The document received significant review and comment in 2007 and 2008,
when it was part of the SIP working group. By May of 2009, almost
a quarter of the SIP implementations at the SIPit 24 interoperability
testing event had incorporated the changes documented by this draft.

The document was adopted into SIPCORE in July of 2009, with significant
support from the active SIPCORE working group members. The document
underwent a Working Group Last Call in January of 2010, which resulted
in no additional comments. This was unsurprising, given the length
of time the document had spent in the SIP working group, and the
relatively high degree of implementation already seen in the field.

(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 such concerns. The document is clearly needed,
and has been authored by one of the preeminent experts on the SIP
protocol. It has received deep reviews by key members of the
community, and has seen significant implementation.

The shepherd is not aware of any IPR claims associated with this
mechanism.

(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?

Speaking for the discussion in SIP, the document was reviewed by a
fairly broad range of individuals. It is fair to say that the
community as it existed in 2008 is familiar with and understands
the contents of this document.

(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 appeal has been threatened.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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 is using an older template for its license notice. The
authors are willing to use the newer license for the final published
document.

No other nits exist (although the idnits tool reports several spurious
warnings).

(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 docment has no informative references. The only normative
references are at an appropriate level of maturity and on the
correct track.

(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?

No IANA actions are necessary. The document contains a section that
indicates this fact.

(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?

No such formal languages exist in the document.

(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 normatively updates RFC 3261, the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP), to address an error in the specified
handling of certain types of transactions. It also modifies
response processing under certain circumstances to address
an identified security risk.

Working Group Summary
The mechanism in this document has good support from those
working group members who participated in its discussion.

Document Quality
The document received significant review and comment in 2007
and 2008, when it was part of the SIP working group. By May
of 2009, almost a quarter of the SIP implementations at the
SIPit 24 interoperability testing event had incorporated the
changes documented by this draft.

The issue fixed by this document was first reported by Pekka
Pessi. Early in the development of the correction documented
in this work, Brett Tate identified an important and necessary
modification to the proposed correction, which had significant
impact on the resulting state maching.