Shepherd writeup

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-holmberg-dispatch-iotl-02

To be Published as: Proposed Standard
Prepared by: Gonzalo Salgueiro ( on 23 October 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 is requested to be published as a Proposed Standards. This 
is the proper type of RFC as it makes normative statements in defining a 
new SIP URI parameter. 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:

In 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) networks, the signaling path 
between a calling user and a called user can be partitioned into segments, 
referred to as traffic legs.  Each traffic leg may span networks belonging 
to different operators, and will have its own characteristics that can be 
different from other traffic legs in the same call.  The directionality in 
traffic legs relates to a SIP request creating a dialogue and stand-alone 
SIP request.  A traffic leg might be associated with multiple SIP dialogs, 
e.g. in case a B2BUA which modifies the SIP dialog identifier is located 
within the traffic leg.

This document defines a new SIP URI parameter, 'iotl', which can be used 
in a SIP URI to indicate that the entity associated with the address, or 
an entity responsible for the host part of the address, represents the 
end of a specific traffic leg (or multiple traffic legs).

        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

The document was considered in the DISPATCH WG. It was agreed to scope 
the document to 3GPP environments, and due to that publish the document 
as AD sponsored. 

         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?

The document has been adopted by 3GPP, and a number of vendors within the 
3GPP community have indicated plans to implement the specification.

         Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

Gonzalo Salgueiro (INSIPID WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.  
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.

Document shepherd considers this document ready for IESG review and has 
reviewed idnits output and IANA Considerations sections.

     (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.

There are no specific concerns or issues. 

    (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 they are not aware of any IPR disclosures 
related to the document. 
    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
        If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

No IPR disclosures have been submitted on draft-holmberg-dispatch-iotl. 

    (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 strong consensus and interest behind this document within the 
3GPP community.

    (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
         discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) 

Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent. 

    (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
         document. (See and the 
         Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
         this check needs to be thorough.

The document passes idnits 2.13.00 

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

Specialized formal review procedures for this document not applicable.

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

Yes, all references within the document have been identified as normative. 

    (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 

No, all normative references within the document have been published as RFCs.

    (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, there are no downward normative references.

    (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.

No, the publication of the document will not change the status of any 
existing RFCs.

    (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 shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section and has 
confirmed that the registration is correct.

    (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. 

    (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 text version of the document was created using the XML2RFC tool, and 
was verified using the IDNITS tool. Spell checking was performed using 
Microsoft Word.