PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt
To be Published as: Informational
Prepared by: Mary Barnes (email@example.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
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
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
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.
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.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
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.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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
(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
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?
(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
(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.
(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
(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
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.