User-Agent-Driven Privacy Mechanism for SIP
draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-08

UPDATED PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-07: "UA-Driven Privacy Mechanism for SIP"

  (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.

Document history:

- draft-munakata-sip-privacy-new-01 was submitted 18th June 2007 and expired 20th December 2007.
- draft-munakata-sip-privacy-new-01 was submitted 9th July 2007 and expired 10th January 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-00 was submitted 12th November 2007 and expired 15th May 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-01 was submitted 18th February 2008 and expired 22nd August 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-02 was submitted 14th July 2008 and expired 15th January 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-03 was submitted 30th October 2008 and expires 3rd May 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-04 was submitted 5th February 2009 and expires 9th August 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-05 was submitted 9th February 2009 and expires 13th August 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-06 was submitted 5th March 2009 and expires 6th September 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-06 was submitted 5th April 2009 and expires 7th October 2009.

WGLC was announced in the SIP WG on 17th February 2009 to complete 2nd March 2009 on -03 version.

Review was made and comments were received from: Michael Procter, Cullen Jennings, John Elwell.

Previously during the discussion of this draft, review has been made and comments received from Jonathan Rosenberg, Roland Jesske, Paul Kyzivat, John Elwell, Cullen Jennings, Krishna Prasad Kalluri.

  (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 had adequate review from working group members.

  (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 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 shepherd has no specific concerns with any aspects of 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?

Full consensus exists on this document.

  (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 2.11.08 reports no NITs found. It raises a warning that this document lacks a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work but was first submitted this became effective. It is understood no such disclaimer is required for this internet-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.

  (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 has no IANA registration requirements.

  (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 .'

Technical summary.

This document defines a guideline for a User Agent (UA) to generate an anonymous Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message by utilizing mechanisms such as Globally Routable User Agent URIs (GRUU) and Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) without the need for a privacy service defined in RFC 3323.

Working group summary.

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

Document Quality

There has been no specific indication of implementation.

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 .

PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-07:
"Using Extended Key Usage (EKU) for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) X.509
Certificates"

  (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.

Document history:

- draft-munakata-sip-privacy-new-01 was submitted 18th June 2007 and
expired 20th December 2007.
- draft-munakata-sip-privacy-new-01 was submitted 9th July 2007 and expired
10th January 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-00 was submitted 12th November 2007 and expired
15th May 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-01 was submitted 18th February 2008 and expired
22nd August 2008.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-02 was submitted 14th July 2008 and expired
15th January 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-03 was submitted 30th October 2008 and expires
3rd May 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-04 was submitted 5th February 2009 and expires
9th August 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-05 was submitted 9th February 2009 and expires
13th August 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-06 was submitted 5th March 2009 and expires 6th
September 2009.
- draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-06 was submitted 5th April 2009 and expires 7th
October 2009.

WGLC was announced in the SIP WG on 17th February 2009 to complete 2nd March 2009 on -03
version.

Review was made and comments were received from: Michael Proctor, Cullen Jennings, John
Elwell.

Previously during the discussion of this draft, review has been made and comments
received from Jonathan Rosenberg, Roland Jesske, Paul Kyzivat, John Elwell, Cullen
Jennings, Krishna Prasad Kalluri.

  (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 had adequate review from working group members.

  (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 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 shepherd has no specific concerns with any aspects of 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?

Full consensus exists on this document.

  (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 2.11.08 reports no NITs found. It raises a warning
that this document lacks a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work but was first submitted this
became effective. It is understood no such disclaimer is required for this internet-
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.

  (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 has no IANA registration requirements.

  (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 .'

Technical summary.

This document defines a guideline for a User Agent (UA) to generate an anonymous Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) message by utilizing mechanisms such as Globally Routable User
Agent URIs (GRUU) and Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) without the need for a
privacy service defined in RFC 3323.

Working group summary.

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

Document Quality

There has been no specific indication of implementation.

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 .