Shepherd writeup

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 

        I (Vijay K. Gurbani) am the Document Shepherd.

        I have personally reviewed the latest version of the
        document and believe that it is ready for forwarding to IESG.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
        have been performed?

        Yes, the document has been reviewed by key WG and non-WG
        members that include John Elwell, Dale Worley, 
        Christian Schmidt, Christer Holmberg, Roland Jesske,
        Martin Dolly, and Paul Kyzivat.  Many among the list of
        reviewers are subject matter experts in SIP.

        I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of 
        the reviews related to this work.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
        AAA, internationalization or XML? 

        I do not have any concerns about broader reviews.  The document
        proposes requirements on transporting user-to-user data
        in SIP.  As such, it has been exposed to review and has received
        feedback from many subject matter experts in SIP.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
        this issue. 

        I do not have any concerns that the AD should be aware of.

        I am not aware of any IPR disclosure related to this 

  (1.e) 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?   
        I believe that the WG consensus behind the document is strong.
        The document has been subject to two WGLCs, with a plurality
        of comments provided during each phase from at least 7-8 
        distinct reviewers.  Each of these comments were addressed in 
        subsequent revisions, and the reviewers who had contributed 
        those comments have been consistently satisfied with the 
        resolution of these comments in revised versions.

  (1.f) 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 
        entered into the ID Tracker.) 

        No one has threatned an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and Boilerplate checks are 
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? 

        Yes, I have personally verified that all nits have been
        addressed.  In the version going to the IESG (-05), there
        is only one nit --- reference to RFC2119 is defined but
        not used.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
        informative? 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 
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
        so, list these downward references to support the Area 
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 

        There are no normative references.  All references are 

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 

        The document does not put any burden on IANA.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
        an automated checker? 

        This is a requirement document, as such there aren't any
        occurrences of a grammar or MIB definitions.

  (1.k) 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 
        This document introduces the transport of call control related User
        to User Information (UUI) using the Session Initiation Protocol
        (SIP), and develops several requirements for a new SIP mechanism.
        Some SIP sessions are established by or related to a non-SIP
        application.  This application may have information that needs to be
        transported between the SIP User Agents during session establishment.
        In addition to interworking with the ISDN UUI Service, this extension
        will also be used for native SIP endpoints requiring application UUI.

     Working Group Summary 
        The working group consensus on this document is solid.  Two
        WGLCs were held to ensure that all comments and feedback
        were accounted for.

     Document Quality 
        This is a requirement document, as such there aren't any
        implementation details to list.  That said, the document has
        received a positive nod from major service provider and 
        equipment vendors.