Private Header (P-Header) Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Authorization of Early Media
draft-ejzak-sipping-p-em-auth-04

IANA Last Call Comments:


Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Parameters" registry located at

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

sub-registry "Header Fields"

Header Name compact Reference
----------------- ------- ---------
P-Early-Media [RFC-ejzak-sipping-p-em-auth-03]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action
for this document.

PROTO Write-up

(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 shepherd is Gonzalo Camarillo. He has reviewed this draft and
believes it is ready to be published as an Informational RFC.

(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 defines a P-header. The SIP change process requires the
SIPPING WG to conduct an expert review on this type of document. The
expert was Aki Niemi. He believed the document was ready to be
published. A few contributors in the working group did not agree with
Aki's judgment, though. We had further discussions but people could not
agree on whether or not defining this P-header was appropriate. At the
end, there was rough consensus that this P-header should be published.

(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?

No, the shepherd does not have 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 does not have any specific concerns.

(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?

As indicated above, a few individuals did not think this P-header should
be defined. However, the majority of the WG was happy with it.


(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.)

The responsible ADs are already aware of all the discussions around 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?

ID Nits 2.00.1 complains about the draft's references. However, after
performing a manual check, the references seem to be OK. The shepherd
has forwarded this draft together with its ID Nits output to the team
developing the ID Nits tool so that they look into it.

(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].

All the normative references are already published RFCs.

(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 [RFC2434]. 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?

The IANA Considerations Section seems OK.

(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?

The document does not use formal language.

(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.


This document describes a private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
header (P-header) to be used by the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI) Telecommunications and Internet converged
Services and Protocols for Advanced Networks (TISPAN) for the
purpose of authorizing early media flows in Third Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) IP Multimedia Subsystems (IMS). This
header is useful in any SIP network that is interconnected with
other SIP networks and needs to control the flow of media in the
early dialog state.

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?

Although some individual did not think this P-header should be defined,
the majority of the working group thought it was OK to define it.

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?

Aki Niemi performed an expert review on this document. Vendors
implementing the architecture proposed by ETSI TISPAN will implement
this P-header.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director?


Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd. Jon Peterson is the
responsible AD.