As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
Intended Status: Informational is requested and indicated in the title page
The RFC creates an additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-
(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:
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.
The document creates an additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Resource-Priority namespace to meet the requirements of the 3GPP
defined Mission Critical Push To Talk, and places this namespace in
the IANA registry.
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?
The draft was presented at IETF95 and discussion was proceeded on the
DISPATCH list. The draft is best handled as an individual submission based on
its scope for 3GPP networks and due to the rules within RFC 4412 and RFC 7134
which are defining the rules for registering the "Resource-Priority
Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority Priority-values" registries.
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?
MCPTT is a 3GPP driven work and is a service of their IMS (IP Multimedia
Subsystem) which is widely deployed over the world. A number of vendors have
indicated that they have implemented, or intend to implement, the document.
Considering its simplicity, this document has received sufficient review from
the IETF community.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Roland Jesske (email@example.com)
Responsible Area Director: Ben Campbell
(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 is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
(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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it
still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The Document Shepherd has no concerns or issues with the document.
(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?
The authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
The IPR disclosures can be found at:
No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-holmberg-dispatch-
(9) 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?
The WG discussed the draft and no open issue are identified. Thus the draft
is ready for publication.
There is strong consensus and interest behind this document within the
(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.)
(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.
No issues found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Specialized formal review procedures for this document not applicable.
(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 completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last
(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 WG considers it
(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).
There are no issues with the IANA considerations.
The document registers two new namespaces. The namespaces well defined and
compliant with RFC 4412 and RFC 7134 which are defining the rules for
registering the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" and "Resource-Priority
(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.
There are no new IANA registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The document does not use any types of formal languages.