(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
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 http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). 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
(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:
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.
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