Shepherd writeup
rfc8101-05

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up. 
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 
header.  
The RFC creates an additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-
Priority namespace.

(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:
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.

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? 

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.

Personnel:

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

Document Shepherd: Roland Jesske (r.jesske@telekom.de)

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? 

No.

(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 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=draft-holmberg-dispatch-mcptt-rp-namespace-01&submit=draft&rfc=&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent=

No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-holmberg-dispatch-
mcptt-rp-namespace.  

(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 
3GPP community.

(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. 

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? 

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 WG considers it 
unnecessary. 

No

(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 
Priority-values" registries.

(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.

Back