Connection Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-13

The draft got substantial IETF LC comments. The draft has been sent back to the WG in order to get consensus on what to do to address the comments. There will be a second IETF LC once the WG reaches consensus.

IANA questions:

The document is unclear about what, if any, actions should be taken. The
IANA Considerations Section says that it "updates section 7.3 of
[RFC4975]," but does not specify what IANA must do. Are there any
actions for IANA? If so, please spell them out. If not, please update
the document to say so.

PROTO writeup for *
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch-05.txt*:
"Session Matching Update for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)"


  (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 document is Hisham Khartabil.

The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for
publication.


  (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?

WGLC comments have been received by: Ben Campbell, Hadriel Kaplan, Adam
Roach, Salvatore Loreto, Shida Schubert, Krisztian Kiss and Adrian
Georgescu. Other people have commented during the work on the document.


  (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?

The document has received review from a number of people whose interests lie
in this particular field, in addition to the normal WG responses.



  (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.


The document shepherd has no concerns with this document.

There have been no IPR disclosures on this document.



  (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?

Among the people currently active in the WG there is a wide concensus behind
the document. No objections have been raised.



  (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.)

Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.


  (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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

For ID-NITS the checks against idnits version 2.12.2 did not report any
NITS.

It is considered that the document contains all needed information.


  (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 draft contains both normative and informative references.

All IETF references have reached RFC status.

There are no normative downward references. There is an informative
reference to a 3GPP specification.


  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document updates section 7.3 of RFC 4975.


  (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?

The document does not contain any material written in a formal language.



  (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
          Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
          and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
          an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
          or introduction.

The document updates the session matching procedure defined in
sections 5.4 and 7.3 of RFC 4975, so that an Message Session Relay
Protocol (MSRP) User Agent (UA) only uses the session-id part of the
MSRP URI in order to perform the consistency checks.  The update
allows intermediaries, Application Layer Gateways (ALGs), to modify
the address information in the MSRP URI of the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) a=path attribute, without the need for the
intermediaries to terminate and do the correlating modifications in
the associated MSRP messages.


          Working Group Summary
          Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
          For example, was there controversy about particular points
          or were there decisions where the consensus was
          particularly rough?

There was consensus in the working group to publish this document.

There were discussions regarding the usage of the SDP c/m parameters for
routing of MSRP messages, rather than using the a=path attribute. It was
agreed to use the a=path attribute.


          Document Quality
          Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
          significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
          implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
          merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
          e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
          conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
          there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
          what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
          Review, on what date was the request posted?

The document has received review by members of the SIMPLE working group, and
by other experts.

The document has been adopted by other standardization bodies.


          Personnel
          Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
          Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
          experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
          in this document are .'

The document shepherd for this document is Hisham Khartabil.

The responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo.

The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are .