Requirements for Multiple Address of Record (AOR) Reachability Information in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-martini-reqs-09

[Ballot comment]
Section 3 is hard to follow for somebody not involved with SIP on a daily basis. I suggest adding some ASCII art to demonstrate relationship between entities and possibly some examples of messages demonstrating issues.

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-martini-reqs

=================================================

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-martini-reqs
  (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?

Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd.  I have personally reviewed
the document, and believe it is ready for publication as an
Informational RFC.

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

The document has been extensively discussed on the MARTINI WG mailing
list.  The discussion has
included representatives from both the PBX and service-provider
communities as well as
participants in 3GPP and SIPForum.  As a result, the reviews appear to
have been
reasonably thorough and representative.

  (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.

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


No concerns.


  (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There has been vigorous discussion in a number of the requirements
included in the document,
but those issues have been resolved.  As a result, there appears to be
consensus behind
the document, and the working group is using the requirements in
evaluating proposed
protocol solutions.

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

No.

  (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?

IDNits are clean:

idnits 2.12.04
tmp/draft-ietf-martini-reqs-07.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):

---------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.
  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Informational

------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

  (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].

The references in the document have been split into normative and
informative.


Normative references are all stable documents published as RFCs.

  (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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 IANA Considerations section exists (section 7).  It requires no
action by 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?

Not applicable.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document

      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

      Technical Summary

This document summarizes the requirements for a mechanism to enable
registration of multiple addresses of record within SIP.  The goal
is to produce a mechanism  suitable for deployment by SIP service
providers on a large scale in support of small to medium sized PBXs.

      Working Group Summary

The WG discussed the issue of E.164/non-E.164 AORs in considerable
depth, and concluded that
extensibility to handle non-E.164 AORs (such as private numbers and
email-style addresses)
was important.

      Document Quality

The document has been reviewed by participants within the IETF MARTINI
WG, including SIP
service providers as well as representatives from the PBX vendor
community.  It has gone
through MARTINI WG last call, with only modest changes resulting.

      Personnel

Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd for this document.
Gonzalo Camarillo is the responsible AD.