Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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 document describes new SIP protocol mechanisms and thus is
properly Standards Track.  Standards Track is indicated in the document header.

(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:
   This document describes how a Push Notification Service (PNS) can be
   used to wake suspended Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agents
   (UAs), using push notifications, for the UA to be able to send
   binding refresh REGISTER requests and to receive receive incoming SIP
   requests.  The document defines new SIP URI parameters and new
   feature-capability indicators that can be used in SIP messages to
   indicate support of the mechanism defined in this document, to
   exchange PNS information between the SIP User Agent (UA) and the SIP
   entity that will request push notifications towards the UA, and to
   trigger such push notification requests.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough? This document has had extensive discussion and review
by a significant number of sip experts.  The mechanism has been revised several
times in response to substantive comments.  There was controversy on the wisdom
of providing mechanisms for proprietary push notification protocols to use, but
the work group has a solid rough consensus that this document solves a real
problem in an appropriate way and does not favor any proprietary push
notification system over a standard one (RFC8030)

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? There are many reports of implementations of
proprietary solutions to the problem this document addresses, and discussion
indicates this mechanism will replace those mechanisms in many cases.  We
expect quite a few implementations, but there have not been reports of actual
implementations at this time.  Many sipcore "regulars" have reviewed drafts of
this document and made substantive comments which has resulted in many versions
of the document. All comments have been addressed.

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Brian Rosen is the Document Shepherd, Ben Campbell is the Area Director

(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 reviewed the current version of the document as well as
several (but not all) of the many versions.  The shepherd believes the document
is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? There have been many detailed reviews of
this document with many substantive comments, all of which have been addressed.
 Two WGLCs have been held because of the extend of changes made subsequent to
the first WGLC.  Commenters have been satisfied that their comments have been
taken into account.  One commenter is still unhappy with some of the mechanism
but no other members have voiced support for his point of view.

(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. No special
reviews are 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.

(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? The shepherd and chairs believe
this document has decent consensus.  There have been NO negative voices, not
even a "do we have to do this?" negative.  It is yet one more piece of ISUP
that apparently needs a SIP transport to adequately handle calls originating
from legacy systems.

(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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits are

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None 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

(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. None

(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 will not change the status of any existing RFCs

(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). This document has many simple IANA requests.  Each is well
documented and the shepherd is confident IANA will have no problems
understanding what is needed.

(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. No expert reviewers are

(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. The document contains a few lines of
ABNF which have been reviewed.