Operational Requirements for ENUM-Based Softswitch Use
draft-ietf-enum-softswitch-req-04

[Ballot discuss]
The title of the document and of section 4 are mis-leading. It looks to me that the document rather deals with 'Operational Requirements for Enum-based Softswitches' than 'ENUM-based Softswitch Requirement'. I suggest to consider changing the title in order to avoid confusions.

In any case the name of the document in the header of each page is different, whioch probably shows that there is a history with the name, this needs to be aligned with whatever the name will eventually be.

[Ballot discuss]
The text about processing DNS answers in Section 4.1 seems to assume
that all NAPTR records contain terminal rules; this probably was
the case in the trial, but should be said explictly (so that an
implementer reading this text realizes that more is needed for full
RFC 3761 functionality).

Sam Weiler's SecDir review identified some areas that require
clarification; the authors have proposed text (which looks OK) which
should be added (either via RFC editor note or revised ID).

WG Chair Write-Up for Publication Request
Working Group: Telephone Number Mapping [ENUM]


Title  :      ENUM-based Softswitch Requirements

Author(s)    : J. Lim, et al.

Filename     :


http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-enum-softswitch-req-03.txt


Proposed Status : Informational

Sheparding WG Chair: Richard Shockey

Last Call Completed: Jan 21, 2008

NITS Reviewer: Alexander Mayhofer.


  (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?

The Document Shepherd for this draft is Richard Shockey, who has
personally reviewed that document.


  (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?

The document has been reviewed principally within the working group.


  (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?

No concerns here. The draft reviews actual operational requirements for SIP soft switches based othat may want to implement RFC3761. The draft is meant to be informational not instructive.

  (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.

No IPR disclosures have been filed. No concerns about the document have been raised.

  (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?

The document has broad consensus within the entire WG and has been actively discussed in the ENUM WG for over 2 years.

  (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 threats of appeals or discontent are known.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?

The Document Shepherd has verified the document, an formal NITS review
has been performed by Alexander Mayhofer ENUM WG Secretary.

  (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].

References are properly split.

  (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 [RFC2434].  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?

There are no IANA considerations in this document.


  (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?

There are no such sections.

  (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 describes experiences of operational requirements and
  several considerations for ENUM-based softswitches concerning call
  routing between two Korean VoIP carriers, gained during the ENUM pre-
  commercial trial hosted by National Internet Development Agency of
  Korea (NIDA) in 2006.

   
          Working Group Summary

          The document is meant to be informational to service providers and manufacturers of softswitches. 

          Document Quality:

      The document has been reviewed by the ENUM WG, but not extensively.   

          Personnel:

            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Richard Shockey

  Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Jon Peterson

      Is an IANA expert needed?
     
      NO

  (end)