Skip to main content

Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for the 3GPP
draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-14

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2014-07-17
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2014-07-14
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2014-07-05
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2014-06-20
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2014-06-20
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2014-06-19
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-06-19
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on ADs
2014-06-03
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on ADs from In Progress
2014-06-02
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2014-06-02
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-06-02
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2014-05-28
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-05-28
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2014-05-21
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-05-21
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-05-21
14 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-05-20
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-05-20
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-05-20
14 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-05-20
14 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2014-05-20
14 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-05-20
14 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2014-05-20
14 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2014-05-20
14 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-05-15
14 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2014-04-25
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-04-25
14 Roland Jesske IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2014-04-25
14 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-14.txt
2014-04-17
13 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2014-04-14
13 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2014-04-10
13 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-04-10
13 Ted Lemon
[Ballot comment]
In 4.1.1:
  The P-Associated-URI header field is applicable in SIP networks where
  the SIP provider a set of identities that a …
[Ballot comment]
In 4.1.1:
  The P-Associated-URI header field is applicable in SIP networks where
  the SIP provider a set of identities that a user can claim (in header
  fields like the From header field) in requests that the UA generates.

I think you are missing a verb here.
2014-04-10
13 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2014-04-10
13 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-04-10
13 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
In side discussion with Richard, we came up with the following text to be added to 4.3:

Note that P-Visited-Network information reveals the …
[Ballot comment]
In side discussion with Richard, we came up with the following text to be added to 4.3:

Note that P-Visited-Network information reveals the location of the user, to the level of the coverage area of the visited network. For a national network, for example, P-Visited-Network would reveal that the user is in the country in question.

It would be helpful to state the hop-by-hop integrity protection requirement from 6.3 in 4.3.1 as well.
2014-04-10
13 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2014-04-10
13 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this draft. I am ready to recommend the approval of the draft, but before that the discussion raised after Martin …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this draft. I am ready to recommend the approval of the draft, but before that the discussion raised after Martin Thomsons'sGen-ART review needs to finish, so that we agree on what changes (if any) are necessary.
2014-04-10
13 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-04-09
13 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2014-04-09
13 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-04-09
13 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-04-08
13 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-04-08
13 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
In this text: 4.3.2.2.  Procedures at the registrar and proxy

Note that a received P-Visited-Network-ID from a UA is a failure case
and …
[Ballot comment]
In this text: 4.3.2.2.  Procedures at the registrar and proxy

Note that a received P-Visited-Network-ID from a UA is a failure case
and MUST be deleted when the request is forwarded.

is "a failure case" the right description?
2014-04-08
13 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-04-08
13 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot discuss]
The text in 4.3.2 leaves me wondering: what is the use case where proxies need to be able to read the visited network …
[Ballot discuss]
The text in 4.3.2 leaves me wondering: what is the use case where proxies need to be able to read the visited network ID? And why are the applicability statements for 4.3 and 4.4 so different, given that information about the networks to which a device roams can be quite sensitive?
2014-04-08
13 Alissa Cooper [Ballot comment]
It would be helpful to state the hop-by-hop integrity protection requirement from 6.3 in 4.3.1 as well.
2014-04-08
13 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2014-04-07
13 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Some comments to consider:

Section 4.3.2 should cover privacy issues related to the content (DNS names) of the P-Visited-Network-ID header field.

Section 4.6: …
[Ballot comment]
Some comments to consider:

Section 4.3.2 should cover privacy issues related to the content (DNS names) of the P-Visited-Network-ID header field.

Section 4.6: The letter 't' is missing in the second to last paragraph at the end of the word  present.
  When presen
  only one instance of the header MUST be present in a particular
  request or response.

Section 5.5 and 5.6 cover P-Charging-Function-Addresses header field syntax and P-Charging-Vector header syntax respectively.  The section does not include a discussion on fraud and it seems like this would be important?  Several of the other sections do include security implications prior to the Security Considerations section.  This is a non-blocking comment since trust and integrity are listed as important to prevent modifications, but it would be good to see mention of fraud as the motivation for an attack either in these sections or in the Security Considerations section.
2014-04-07
13 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2014-04-07
13 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-04-07
13 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-04-04
13 Richard Barnes Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-04-10
2014-04-04
13 Richard Barnes IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2014-04-04
13 Richard Barnes Ballot has been issued
2014-04-04
13 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-04-04
13 Richard Barnes Created "Approve" ballot
2014-03-14
13 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2014-03-04
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2014-03-04
13 Amanda Baber
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.  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-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the Header Fields registry in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters page at

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

six existing header fields are to have their reference changed from RFC3455 to [ RFC-to-be ].

The header fields to have reference changes are:

P-Associated-URI
P-Called-Party-ID
P-Visited-Network-ID
P-Access-Network-Info
P-Charging-Function-Addresses
P-Charging-Vector

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.
2014-02-28
13 Martin Thomson Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Martin Thomson.
2014-02-20
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson
2014-02-20
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson
2014-02-20
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace
2014-02-20
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace
2014-02-17
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley
2014-02-17
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley
2014-02-14
13 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2014-02-14
13 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the Session Initiation
  Protocol (SIP) for the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)'
  as Informational RFC

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 2014-03-14. 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


  This document describes a set of private Session Initiation Protocol
  (SIP) header fields (P-headers) used by the 3rd-Generation
  Partnership Project (3GPP), along with their applicability, which is
  limited to particular environments.  The P-header fields are for a
  variety of purposes within the networks that the partners use,
  including charging and information about the networks a call
  traverses. This document is an update to RFC3455.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2014-02-14
13 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-02-14
13 Richard Barnes
PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 16 January 2014


  (1) What type of …
PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 16 January 2014


  (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?

This document obsoletes RFC 3455, which was originally published as an informational document.  Thus, Informational is appropriate. This RFC type is indicated on the title page.

    (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 describes a set of private Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) header fields (P-headers) used by the 3rd-Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), along with their applicability, which is
limited to particular environments.  The P-header fields are for a
variety of purposes within the networks that the partners use,
including charging and information about the networks a call
traverses.
 
        Working Group Summary:
        Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
        it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
        about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
        document?
 
This document has been discussed in the DISPATCH WG and in the SIPPING WG prior to that. The DISPATCH WG does not progress any documents as WG documents.  This document defines P-headers, which per the SIP Change process (RFC 3427), do not require WG consensus for publication.  While RFC 5727 deprecated the definition of P-headers for SIP, the P-headers in this document followed the procedures that were adopted by RFC 3427, which were in
place at the time of publication of RFC 3455.  Individual/AD sponsored is the typical publication path. 

        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 is required for the 3GPP/IMS specifications, thus any vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this specification. 

Dean Willis performed an expert review of this document, suggesting several changes, which have been incorporated.  Several other individuals reviewed and or commented on the document both on the DISPATCH WG mailing list, as well as previously on the SIPPING WG mailing list.

        Personnel
        Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
        Director?

Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.  Richard Banes 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 has thoroughly reviewed this version of the document. 
     
    (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
        or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

    (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.
No.

    (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 interested community has discussed those issues
        and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
        detail those concerns here.

The only concern I have is that one of the authors indicated that he has not read any of the more recent versions. Thus, my concern is that he might actually bother to do that during AUTH48 and potentially raise non-trivial issues (as I've seen happen with other
documents where authors haven't been engaged for a period of time). 

    (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.

Yes.
 
    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
        If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
        disclosures.

No.

    (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
        document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
        community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is WG consensus that AD sponsored is the best approach for progressing this document. No one has expressed concerns about its progression. 

    (10) 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
        publicly available.)

No.

    (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.

The document was checked using idnits 2.13.01.    There is a warning about the IP addresses in the examples, which do need to be changed to be within the documentation range per RFC 5735. While it's not indicated by idnits, there are still some domains which are not using the example domains as specified in 2606.  I believe these nits can be fixed along with any IETF Last Call comments.

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
        criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
        reviews.

Per the SIP change process, this document requires expert review as it defines P-headers. Dean Willis performed the expert review.

    (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
        either normative or informative?

Yes.

    (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?

No.

    (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.

    (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
        interested community considers it unnecessary.

This document obsoletes RFC 3455, which is indicated in the Title, abstract and
overview.  The changes/impact on RFC 3455 are described in
section 9.

    (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).

This document clearly identifies the IANA considerations.  This document defines no new IANA registries.  The only impact on IANA registrations is updating the references to the RFC number assigned when this document is published.

    (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.

This document defines no new IANA registries, thus no expert review is required.

    (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate 
        sections of the document written in a formal language, such as
        XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The ABNF for this document was validated using Bill Fenner's ABNF web parsing tool.
2014-02-14
13 Richard Barnes Last call was requested
2014-02-14
13 Richard Barnes Ballot approval text was generated
2014-02-14
13 Richard Barnes IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2014-02-14
13 Richard Barnes Last call announcement was generated
2014-02-14
13 Richard Barnes Ballot writeup was changed
2014-02-14
13 Richard Barnes Ballot writeup was generated
2014-02-05
13 Richard Barnes
PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 16 January 2014


  (1) What type of …
PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 16 January 2014


  (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?

This document obsoletes RFC 3455, which was originally published as an informational document.  Thus, Informational is appropriate. This RFC type is indicated on the title page.

    (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 describes a set of private Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) header fields (P-headers) used by the 3rd-Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), along with their applicability, which is
limited to particular environments.  The P-header fields are for a
variety of purposes within the networks that the partners use,
including charging and information about the networks a call
traverses.
 
        Working Group Summary:
        Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
        it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
        about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
        document?
 
This document has been discussed in the DISPATCH WG and in the SIPPING WG prior to that. The DISPATCH WG does not progress any documents as WG documents.  This document defines P-headers, which per the SIP Change process (RFC 3427), do not require WG consensus for publication.  While RFC 5727 deprecated the definition of P-headers for SIP, the P-headers in this document followed the procedures that were adopted by RFC 3427, which were in
place at the time of publication of RFC 3455.  Individual/AD sponsored is the typical publication path. 

        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 is required for the 3GPP/IMS specifications, thus any vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this specification. 

Dean Willis performed an expert review of this document, suggesting several changes, which have been incorporated.  Several other individuals reviewed and or commented on the document both on the DISPATCH WG mailing list, as well as previously on the SIPPING WG mailing list.

        Personnel
        Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
        Director?

Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.  Gonzalo Camarillo 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 has thoroughly reviewed this version of the document. 
     
    (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
        or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

    (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.
No.

    (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 interested community has discussed those issues
        and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
        detail those concerns here.

The only concern I have is that one of the authors indicated that he has not read any of the more recent versions. Thus, my concern is that he might actually bother to do that during AUTH48 and potentially raise non-trivial issues (as I've seen happen with other
documents where authors haven't been engaged for a period of time). 

    (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.

Yes.
 
    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
        If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
        disclosures.

No.

    (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
        document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
        community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is WG consensus that AD sponsored is the best approach for progressing this document. No one has expressed concerns about its progression. 

    (10) 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
        publicly available.)

No.

    (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.

The document was checked using idnits 2.13.01.    There is a warning about the IP addresses in the examples, which do need to be changed to be within the documentation range per RFC 5735. While it's not indicated by idnits, there are still some domains which are not using the example domains as specified in 2606.  I believe these nits can be fixed along with any IETF Last Call comments.

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
        criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
        reviews.

Per the SIP change process, this document requires expert review as it defines P-headers. Dean Willis performed the expert review.

    (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
        either normative or informative?

Yes.

    (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?

No.

    (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.

    (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
        interested community considers it unnecessary.

This document obsoletes RFC 3455, which is indicated in the Title, abstract and
overview.  The changes/impact on RFC 3455 are described in
section 9.

    (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).

This document clearly identifies the IANA considerations.  This document defines no new IANA registries.  The only impact on IANA registrations is updating the references to the RFC number assigned when this document is published.

    (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.

This document defines no new IANA registries, thus no expert review is required.

    (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate 
        sections of the document written in a formal language, such as
        XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The ABNF for this document was validated using Bill Fenner's ABNF web parsing tool.
2014-02-05
13 Richard Barnes Assigned to Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
2014-02-05
13 Richard Barnes Intended Status changed to Informational
2014-02-05
13 Richard Barnes IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2014-02-05
13 Richard Barnes Document shepherd changed to Mary Barnes
2014-02-05
13 Richard Barnes Stream changed to IETF from None
2014-01-14
13 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt
2014-01-08
12 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-12.txt
2014-01-06
11 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-11.txt
2013-12-03
10 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-10.txt
2013-10-08
09 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-09.txt
2013-03-15
08 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-08.txt
2013-02-04
07 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-07.txt
2012-11-16
06 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-06.txt
2012-11-08
05 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-05.txt
2012-04-02
04 Roland Jesske New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-04.txt
2012-01-09
03 (System) New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-03.txt
2011-11-14
03 (System) Document has expired
2011-05-02
02 (System) New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-02.txt
2008-07-14
01 (System) New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-01.txt
2005-10-20
00 (System) New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-00.txt