Indicating Support for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-02

[Note]: 'This draft is ref blocked by ICE/STUN/TURN. There is a slight possible that a small change may be needed here to negotiation things once TURN / STUN are all done. It is waiting for theses to be complete to check that no change is needed here before sending it on.' added by Cullen Jennings

IANA Last Call Comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Parameters " registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters

sub-registry "Option Tags - per [RFC3261] Section 27.1"

Name Description Reference
----------- ------------------------------------------ ---------
ice This option tag is used to identify the
[RFC-sip-ice-option-tag-02]
Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
extension. When present in a Require header
field, it indicates that ICE is required by an agent.

Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "Media Feature
Tags [RFC2506]" registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-feature-tags

sub-registry
"Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.features.sip-tree (1.3.6.1.8.4) -
per [RFC3840]"

Decimal Name Description Reference
------- ---- ----------- ---------
tbd (22) sip.ice This feature tag
[RFC-sip-ice-option-tag-02]
indicates that the device supports Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE).

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions
for this document.

PROTO Write-up

(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?

Keith Drage

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?

The need for a SIP option tag developed out of discussions in the MMUSIC working group
on draft-ietf-sip-ice. See discussion in IETF#67, and discussions on the IETF MMUSIC
list (Christer Holmber, Michael Slavitch). In conformance with RFC 3427, this portion of
the work was passed to the SIP working group.

Document history:

- draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-00 was submitted 1st March 2007 and expires 1st
September 2007.
- draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-01 was submitted 5th March 2007 and expires 6th
September 2007.
- draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-02 was submitted 19th June 2007 and expires 21st
December 2007.

WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-ice-option-tag-01 on 29th March 2007
with comments requested by 20th April 2007.

Review was made and comments were received from: Peter Blatherwick, Jeroen van Bemmel,
Kevin Johns. During the course of the work comments have also been made by: Ernst
Horvath.

(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 defines mechanisms that are entirely internal to the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP). The document shepherd considers that no external review from an external
specialist is necessary.

(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 defines a new SIP protocol extension for a particular purpose in a form
that has been used for many other extensions. The document shepherd has no concerns with
the 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?

The document has been reviewed by appropriate SIP experts. It is not considered that any
of the topics have significant architectural or protocol impact.

(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.)

None indicated.

(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.

The document has been reviewed against the guidelines in RFC 4485 and it is believed
that the document is conformant with those guidelines.

For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.04.09 report no NITS found except that draft-
ietf-mmusic-ice-13 is now at a later version. While this needs correction, it should not
cause a problem in allowing IESG last call to proceed. There are no dependent issues in
the revisions that impact the technical contents of this draft.

(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 document has separate sections for normative and informative references. The
normative references have been checked and found to be normative. The informative
references have also been checked and found to be all informative.

There are no downrefs in the document.

(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 defines the following values that require registration:

* A SIP option tag for ice. The IANA registry requirements are for a standards track
document and this is a standards track document. The IANA considerations section in
section 7.1 of the document provides for the appropriate revision to the registry in
conformance with the format of that registry.
* A media feature tag for ice. The IANA registry requirements are for IETF consensus
which can here be represented by the contents of a standards track document. The IANA
considerations section in section 7.2 of the document provides for the appropriate
revision to the registry in conformance with the format of that registry. Note that
while the presentation of the information is slightly different to that of the IANA
registry, this is the format that all previous information for this registry has been
presented in.

(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 contains no 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.

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?

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?

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 <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Technical summary.

This specification defines a media feature tag and an option tag for use with the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). The media feature tag allows a UA to communicate to
its registrar that it supports ICE. The option tag allows a User Agent (UA) to require
support for ICE in order for a call to proceed.

Working group summary.

There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. The document came
about as a result of discussions in the IETF MMUSIC working group to progress draft-
ietf-mmusic-ice.

Document Quality

There has been no indication of implementation of this specific draft. There are known
implementations of earlier versions of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice.

Personnel

The document shepherd for this document was Keith Drage. The responsible Area Director
was Cullen Jennings. 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE
ADDED BY THE AD>.