Shepherd writeup
rfc7976-09

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?

    Informational, which is reflected correctly on the title page header.

    This draft is an update to RFC 7315, which is also informational. 

    RFC 7315 describes a set of private header (P-header) Session
    Initiation Protocol (SIP) fields used by the 3rd Generation 
    Partnership Project (3GPP), along with their applicability, 
    which is limited to mobile environments based on 3GPP
    specifications. 


(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.

    draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates fixes misalignments
    that occurred when RFC 7315 updated and obsoleted RFC 3455 
    and also identifies 3GPP use cases that require updates 
    to the P- header field definitions given in RFC 7315. 


 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
  document?

    The RFC 7315 errata and updates were originally discussed on the 
    sipcore mailing list, but since the work did not fall under 
    sipcore's charter, discussion moved to the dispatch working group.
    Since the draft and the original RFC are 3GPP-centric, it was 
    decided among the sipcore and dispatch chairs and the responsible
    AD to AD-sponsor the draft.  


 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?

    There are existing implementations of RFC 7315 and the  
    updates captured in draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates  
    in 3GPP networks. 3GPP TS 24.229 already specifies the P- header 
    field usage that this draft is clarifying for alignment
    and completeness.   

    Reviewers are thanked in the Acknowledgments section. 
    Adam Roach provided the expert review, covered in 
    section (12) below. 

 Personnel

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

    Document Shepherd: Jean Mahoney

    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 Shepherd participated in early discussions and 
    has reviewed multiple versions of the document. 


(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 interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

    The Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about this 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.

    Each author confirmed that they had no IPR to declare on this draft.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

    None filed. 


(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 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 publicly available.) 

    No.


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

    idnits 2.14.01 was run, and no issues were found. 
    The shepherd checked the draft against http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html.
    No issues were found with the draft.  


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

    According to RFC 5727, documents that specify Informational header fields 
    pass through an Expert Review system. Adam Roach, as designated expert for
    SIP header fields, reviewed the draft: 
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/nKE8LCMxxU2JHH_0wXyqC6_ud9I, 
    and version -06 addressed the review comments. 


(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

    This document updates RFC 7315. This information is clearly captured 
    in the header, abstract, and introduction.


(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 draft has no impact on the existing IANA registries nor 
    does it define new ones.  


(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.

    This document does not define any 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.

    No sections of this document are written in a formal language, 
    thus no automated checks were performed.  


Back