Updates to SIPREC correcting Metadata Media Type
draft-ietf-sipcore-siprec-fix-mediatype-06

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-sipcore-siprec-fix-mediatype and RFC 9806, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Consider: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6838#section-4.2.9

Given:

```
  Interoperability considerations: Please note that [RFC7866] specified
  the use of "application/rs-metadata", which is obsoleted in favour of
  "application/rs-metadata+xml".
```

Should "application/rs-metadata" be listed as a deprecated alias?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Linda Dunbar for her secdir review.

Section 4.1, Security considerations:  I am not a media type expert by any measure, but is it possible to point to RFC7866 directly?

[Ballot comment]
Hi Dan,

Thank you for the effort put into this, especially that this was your first Internet-Draft (according to Acknowledgments Section). It is likely this will be your first RFC. Congratulations!

Thanks to Giuseppe Fioccola for his opsdir review and your explanation at [1] to understand how the “bugs” happened/detected.

Please find below some few comments:

# Abstract should be complete in itself

CURRENT:
  SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC) protocol is defined by both RFC
  7865 and RFC 7866.  Unfortunately, both RFCs contradict each other
  regarding how recording metadata is to be labeled.  In addition,
  neither RFCs registered the new media type.  This document updates
  RFC 7866 to align with RFC 7865 when labeling recording metadata and
  registers the new media type.

Consider at least adding the titles of 7865 and 7866 when first cited. See more at rfc7322#section-4.3.

# Expand at first use

OLD: SIPREC is defined …

NEW: SIP-Based Media Recording (SIPREC) is defined …

# Add a reference entry, instead of an inline URL.

CURRENT:
  errata 7987 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7987)

# The boilerplate is not used. Please remove it

CURRENT:
  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
  "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
  BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
  capitals, as shown here.

# Make the fix to the interop concern clear enough

OLD:
  Interoperability considerations: Please note that [RFC7866] specified
  the use of "application/rs-metadata", which this document corrects.

NEW:
  Interoperability considerations: Please note that [RFC7866] specified
  the use of "application/rs-metadata", which is obsoleted in favor of
  "application/rs-metadata+xml".

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/BK8zm7oPm3mIsYZoBNLOSwjHGKI/

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-sipcore-siprec-fix-mediatype-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

a single, new media type is to be registered as follows:

Name: rs-metadata+xml
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC7865 ]

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-04-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andy@hxr.us, draft-ietf-sipcore-siprec-fix-mediatype@ietf.org, pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Updates to SIPREC correcting Metadata Media Type) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol Core WG
(sipcore) to consider the following document: - 'Updates to SIPREC correcting
Metadata Media Type'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-04-16. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC) protocol is defined by both RFC
  7865 and RFC 7866.  Unfortunately, both RFCs contradict each other
  regarding how recording metadata is to be labeled.  In addition,
  neither RFCs registered the new media type.  This document updates
  RFC 7866 to align with RFC 7865 when labeling recording metadata and
  registers the new media type.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-siprec-fix-mediatype/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

SIPREC is mandatory to implement in Public Safety (as per the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) standard NENA i3 Standard for Next Generation 9-1-1, NENA-STA-010.3f-2021.) That standard calls out the relevant IETF standards, including RFCs 7865 and 7866, the targets of this document. Just a few people handle most of the interaction with IETF.

Four people in addition to the author expressed interest in having the document adopted. After adoption two people, plus this sipcore chairs, supported it progressing. No one was opposed. (There was one editorial comment, which has been addressed.)

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

3. 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 publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

SIPREC is extensively implemented by both 9-1-1 call handling systems (CHS) and media logging vendors. The author reports being aware of ten commercial implementations. The problem addressed by this document was discovered in NENA industry collaboration events.

Also, the protocol very likely has a relatively high adoption in enterprise call center recording technologies as some of the same vendors are involved and there are no competing IP-based protocols for this purpose (at least I am aware of).

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

NENA specifications depend on SIPREC. It is people involved with NENA and its implementations who have driven this update, so no further reviews are needed for that.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The IETF nit checker (idnits) found no problems.
No other automated checks are applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The shepherd evaluated this document relative to those issues. That turned up a few small things. The document has already been revised to address those. The ART issue list highlighted media types as a concern, and requested that any media type definitions be submitted to ietf-types@iana.org. I have posted a query there about this document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream?

Proposed Standard.

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

Because the document being updated (RFC 7866) is of this type.

    Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Yes.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The author has stated he has no IPR to report.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

One purpose of this document is to register the media type defined in RFC 7865.
That is the only IANA consideration.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

SIPREC is mandatory to implement in Public Safety (as per the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) standard NENA i3 Standard for Next Generation 9-1-1, NENA-STA-010.3f-2021.) That standard calls out the relevant IETF standards, including RFCs 7865 and 7866, the targets of this document. Just a few people handle most of the interaction with IETF.

Four people in addition to the author expressed interest in having the document adopted. After adoption two people, plus this sipcore chairs, supported it progressing. No one was opposed. (There was one editorial comment, which has been addressed.)

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

3. 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 publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

SIPREC is extensively implemented by both 9-1-1 call handling systems (CHS) and media logging vendors. The author reports being aware of ten commercial implementations. The problem addressed by this document was discovered in NENA industry collaboration events.

Also, the protocol very likely has a relatively high adoption in enterprise call center recording technologies as some of the same vendors are involved and there are no competing IP-based protocols for this purpose (at least I am aware of).

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

NENA specifications depend on SIPREC. It is people involved with NENA and its implementations who have driven this update, so no further reviews are needed for that.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The IETF nit checker (idnits) found no problems.
No other automated checks are applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The shepherd evaluated this document relative to those issues. That turned up a few small things. The document has already been revised to address those. The ART issue list highlighted media types as a concern, and requested that any media type definitions be submitted to ietf-types@iana.org. I have posted a query there about this document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream?

Proposed Standard.

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

Because the document being updated (RFC 7866) is of this type.

    Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Yes.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The author has stated he has no IPR to report.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

One purpose of this document is to register the media type defined in RFC 7865.
That is the only IANA consideration.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/