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? Proposed
Standard. This is an extension to the SIP protocol and standards track is
appropriate. Standards Track is indicated on the title page.
(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: Called parties
often wish to decide whether to accept, reject or redirect calls based on the
likely nature of the call. For example, they may want to reject unwanted
telemarketing or fraudulent calls, but accept emergency alerts from numbers not
in their address book. This document describes SIP Call-Info parameters and a
feature tag that allow originating, intermediate and terminating SIP entities
to label calls as to their type, confidence and references to additional
Working Group Summary:
This document fits into the general area the stir working group has been
addressing, but deal with the problem of how a user expresses their wishes to
their service provider to handle incoming calls based on information mechanisms
like stir would provide. It is a simple extension to the existing Call-Info
header and is a relatively uncomplicated document. It had a relatively smooth
path through the normal sipcore process and has generally been well received.
Several of the core sip experts have reviewed the document, but only offered
relatively minor suggestions, which were incorporated in the text. The shepherd
considers this to be a high quality document.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Brian Rosen, sipcore co-chair
Who is the 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 shepherd has read every version of this draft. He believes the document is
ready to publish
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? No
(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. None needed
(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. No concerns
(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? Yes
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No
IPR disclosures have been filed on this document
(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? This document has good consensus.
All of our regulars have read it, several have provided reviews. It did not
get a great deal of discussion, but chairs feel that is largely because it was
a simple, uncomplicated mechanism
(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.) No
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
There are some very minor nits (lines too long, reference that needed to be
updated,..). The shepherd will make sure these are addressed prior to
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No special reviews needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? Yes
(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? None. The current version
references a draft which has now been published as RFC8224 (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.
(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 other document
(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). The document registers several new entries and creates a new
registry. The IANA instructions are clear.
(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. The new registry
(Call-Info Types) will require a new Expert Reviewer. The document author
(Henning Shulzrinne) is the obvious choice for an expert. The expert would not
need much domain expertise to provide an adequate review, so finding an expert
should be easy.
(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. There is a very small piece of ABNF in
the document which has had adequate review, including by the document shepherd.
It fits well with existing sip ABNF.