The 'sip-trunking-capability' Link Relation Type
draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-05

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-03

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Dan Romascanu for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cCbhIYhRA9a5A5cetapDsKTttmE).

## Comments

### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
                "href" :"https://capserver.ssp1.com/capserver/capdoc.json"
```
Please use an example domain here.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### URLs

These URLs in the document did not return content:

* https://capserver.ssp1.com/capserver/capdoc.json

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this short document.

From reading this document, it wasn't clear to me as to what the exact relationship is between this document and I-D.ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer.  Specifically, is I-D.ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer just an example of what might be found using 'sip-trunking-capability' or is it the only capability document that would expect to be found at that location?  Based on the answer to this question, it might be helpful for the text in section 4 to be more proscriptive of the relationship, and perhaps check that the text is section 1 and 2 also describes this clearly.

In terms of document process, I was slightly surprised to see:
(a) this as Informational rather than Standards Track - I guess that Informational is sufficient, but Standards Track may have been clearer to a reader;
(b) that ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer is only an informative reference rather than a normative reference (which goes back to my original question above);
(c) this as a separate document to ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer, which also goes back to my original question above.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this short document.

From reading this document, it wasn't clear to me as to what the exact relationship is between this document and I-D.ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer.  Specifically, is I-D.ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer just an example of what might be found using 'sip-trunking-capability' or is it the only capability document that would expect to be found at that location?  Based on the answer to this question, it might be helpful for the text in section 4 to be more proscriptive of the relationship, and perhaps check that the text is section 1 and 2 also describes this clearly.

In terms of document process, I was slightly surprised to see:
(a) this as Informational rather than Standards Track - I guess that Informational is sufficient, but Standards Track may have been clearer to a reader.
(b) that ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer is only an informative reference rather than a normative reference (which goes back to my original question above).
(c) this as a separate document to ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer, which also goes back to my original question above.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this short document.

From reading this document, it wasn't clear to me as to what the exact relationship is between this document and I-D.ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer.  Specifically, is I-D.ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer just an example of what might be found using 'sip-trunking-capability' or is it the only capability document that would expect to be found at that location?  Based on the answer to this question, it might be helpful for the text in section 4 to be more proscriptive of the relationship, and perhaps check that the text is section 1 and 2 also describes this clearly.

In terms of document process, I was slightly surprised:
(a) to see this as Informational rather than Standards Track - I guess that Informational is sufficient, but Standards Track may have been clearer to a reader.
(b) to see that ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer is only an informative reference rather than a normative reference (which goes back to my original question above).
(c) to see this as a separate document to ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer, which also goes back to my original question above.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document.

Some comments though:

1) is "an enterprise telephony SIP" defined and accepted in the SIP community ? (I refer here to "enterprise"

2) the abstract starts with "This specification defines", is an informational document a specification ?

3) s/https://capserver.ssp1.com/capserver/capdoc.json/https://capserver.ssp1.example.com/capserver/capdoc.json/

Hope this helps to improve the document,

Regards

-éric

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Link Relation Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/

the early registration for

sip-trunking-capability

will be made permanent and have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-03-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: asap-chairs@ietf.org, asap@ietf.org, draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link@ietf.org, mahoney@nostrum.com, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The 'sip-trunking-capability' Link Relation Type) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Automatic SIP trunking And Peering
WG (asap) to consider the following document: - 'The
'sip-trunking-capability' Link Relation Type'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-03-22. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This specification defines the 'sip-trunking-capability' link
  relation type that may be used by an enterprise telephony Session
  Initiation Protocol (SIP) network to retrieve a SIP trunking
  capability set document, which contains the capabilities and
  configuration requirements of an Internet Telephony Service Provider
  (ITSP).  These technical requirements allow for seamless peering
  between SIP-based enterprise telephony networks and the ITSP.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-01

2023-02-18

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This draft is uncontroversial as it simply registers a link relation type with IANA. Neither the call for adoption nor the WGLC elicited much in the way of discussion.



2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No



3. 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.)

No



4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document only registers a new link relation with IANA.



## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No



6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

A designated expert reviewed the IANA registration. See #20 below for details.



7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A



8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

This document was reviewed by the working group as well as by the IANA designated expert for the link relations registry. There are no automated checks or reviews available for this document.



## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes



10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The Document Shepherd reviewed these checklists and no issues were found in the document.



11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational, which is appropriate for the registration policy of "Specification Required" for link relation types (https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml#link-relations-1)



12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All necessary IP disclosures have been made in relation to this draft.



13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes



14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No issues



15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references are correctly categorized.



16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A



17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No



18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No



19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No



20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The designated expert for link relation types reviewed the document and suggested that "sip-trunking-capability" be used for the Relation Name. The authors incorporated this feedback.

See
https://github.com/protocol-registries/link-relations/issues/33
https://github.com/protocol-registries/link-relations/issues/46



21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document does not create any new IANA registries.



[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-asap-siptrunkingcapability-link-01

2023-02-18

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This draft is uncontroversial as it simply registers a link relation type with IANA. Neither the call for adoption nor the WGLC elicited much in the way of discussion.



2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No



3. 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.)

No



4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document only registers a new link relation with IANA.



## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No



6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

A designated expert reviewed the IANA registration. See #20 below for details.



7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A



8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

This document was reviewed by the working group as well as by the IANA designated expert for the link relations registry. There are no automated checks or reviews available for this document.



## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes



10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The Document Shepherd reviewed these checklists and no issues were found in the document.



11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational, which is appropriate for the registration policy of "Specification Required" for link relation types (https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml#link-relations-1)



12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All necessary IP disclosures have been made in relation to this draft.



13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes



14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No issues



15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The references are correctly categorized.



16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A



17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No



18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No



19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No



20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The designated expert for link relation types reviewed the document and suggested that "sip-trunking-capability" be used for the Relation Name. The authors incorporated this feedback.

See
https://github.com/protocol-registries/link-relations/issues/33
https://github.com/protocol-registries/link-relations/issues/46



21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document does not create any new IANA registries.



[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/