# Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons
Shepherd: Brian Rosen (br@brianrosen.net)
## Document History
1. The consensus for this document within the workgroup was very strong.
A relatively large cross section of the work group read the doc and believed it
was ready to publish, 2. This is a very simple draft, with a waiting use
case, that had no dissent, pretty much at all. There were no negative comments
in WGLC 3. No one has threatened an appeal or indicated any displeasure,
let alone extreme displeasure with the draft. 4. There are entities who
are planning implementations but the shepherd is unaware of existing
implementations. However, this document is required for recent developments in
stir, which has wide deployment, and we expect quite a few implementations
shortly. ## Additional Reviews 5. This document is needed by stir, and
stir members have reviewed the document. 6. No special reviews are needed
by this document. 7. This document does not describe a YANG model. 8.
There is no formal language description in this document, and thus no automated
checks are required. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. It is the shepherd’s
opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly
designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director. 10.
We do not expect any issues with cross area reviews. This is a very simple
document with very little impact beyond the simple change it makes to RFC3326.
11. This document should be Proposed Standard. It makes normative changes
to a PS document (RFC3326) and describes a change to the SIP protocol. 12.
What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream, which is
reflected in Datatracker. 13. The sole author has indicated that he not
aware of any IPR that should be disclosed.. 14. The sole author has
indicated his willingness to be listed as such. 15. There is an informative
reference that will need to be updated as the document proceeds. The
referenced document is moving through the process smoothly. The shepherd does
not believe there are any more nits that need to be addressed. 16. The
references are all correctly designated as normative. 17. All references
are to IETF documents. 18. There are no downrefs. 19. There are no
normative references to other non-published documents. There is an informative
reference to draft-ietf-stir-identity header-errors-handling which is in WGLC
20. This document will update RFC3326. This is correctly represented in
the document. 21. There are no IANA considerations.
--- Edit (WK): Some sort of parser monkeyed with the formatting, so I
reformatted the above with `tr '\n' ' ' | perl -pne 's/(\d+\.)/\n\n$1/g' | sed
's/ //'`
## Document History
1. The consensus for this document within the workgroup was very strong. A
relatively large cross section of the work group read the doc and believed it
was ready to publish,
2. This is a very simple draft, with a waiting use case, that had no dissent,
pretty much at all. There were no negative comments in WGLC
3. No one has threatened an appeal or indicated any displeasure, let alone
extreme displeasure with the draft.
4. There are entities who are planning implementations but the shepherd is
unaware of existing implementations. However, this document is required for
recent developments in stir, which has wide deployment, and we expect quite a
few implementations shortly. ## Additional Reviews
5. This document is needed by stir, and stir members have reviewed the
document.
6. No special reviews are needed by this document.
7. This document does not describe a YANG model.
8. There is no formal language description in this document, and thus no
automated checks are required.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. It is the shepherd’s opinion that this document is needed, clearly
written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the
responsible Area Director.
10. We do not expect any issues with cross area reviews. This is a very
simple document with very little impact beyond the simple change it makes to
RFC 3326.
11. This document should be Proposed Standard. It makes normative changes to
a PS document (RFC3326) and describes a change to the SIP protocol.
12. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream, which
is reflected in Datatracker.
13. The sole author has indicated that he not aware of any IPR that should be
disclosed..
14. The sole author has indicated his willingness to be listed as such.
15. There is an informative reference that will need to be updated as the
document proceeds. The referenced document is moving through the process
smoothly. The shepherd does not believe there are any more nits that need to
be addressed.
16. The references are all correctly designated as normative.
17. All references are to IETF documents.
18. There are no downrefs.
19. There are no normative references to other non-published documents. There
is an informative reference to draft-ietf-stir-identity header-errors-handling
which is in WGLC
20. This document will update RFC 3326. This is correctly represented in the
document.
21. There are no IANA considerations.