Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-09:

(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?

        Intended Status: Proposed Standard. This document defines a new header
        field parameter "logme" for the "Session-ID" header field.

(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

       This document describes an indicator for the SIP protocol which can be
       used to mark signaling as being of interest to logging.  Such marking
       will typically be applied as part of network testing controlled by the
       network operator and not used in normal user agent signaling.  However,
       such marking can be carried end-to-end including the originating and
       terminating SIP user agents, even if a session originates and terminates
       in different networks.

       This document defines a new header field parameter "logme" for the
       "Session-ID" header field.  Implementations of this document MUST
       implement session identity specified in [RFC7989].

Working Group Summary

       The work on the document took a relatively long time in the WG. The
       reason was not so much related to controversies, or different opinions,
       but more related to the cycles the authors, contributors and reviewers
       were able to put on the work. There is a consensus in the INSIPID WG to
       publish the document as an RFC and it has received sufficient review to
       ensure document quality and technical accuracy.

Document Quality

       A number of vendors have indicated that they have implemented, or intend
       to implement, the document. Individuals representing the implementers
       were also involved in the work on the document.

       The document is also referenced by 3GPP, and support is required for
       certain IMS use-cases and functions.


      Document Shepherd: Gonzalo Salgueiro ( ¬ INSIPID WG

      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 is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?


(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.


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

        The Document Shepherd has no concerns or issues with the 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 has confirmed that any appropriate IPR disclosure has been

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

        There is no IPR disclosures against this document and neither author
        knows of any undeclared IPR disclosures.

(9) 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 WG as a whole understands the draft and agrees with it being
        published as an RFC.

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

idnits 2.15.01


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

  == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
     feeds but 37 pages

  Checking nits according to :

  ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     being 2 characters in excess of 72.

  -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according
     to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe
     there should be IPv6 examples, too?

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  == Line 161 has weird spacing: '  p1.ex...'

  -- The document date (December 19, 2017) is 54 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 1473, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7206' is defined on line 1511, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7206

     Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

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


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


(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?


(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.

        Yes.  There is a normative reference to an Informational RFC (RFC
        7206).  The authors will fix this along with other comments received
        during AD review and/or IESG review.

(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 WG considers it unnecessary.

        This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

        There are no issues with the IANA considerations.

(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.

        There are no new IANA registries created by this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

        The Document Shepherd has reviewed the BNF rules. The document does not
        use other types of formal languages.