(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Propothsed 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?
Standards Track
(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 defines the 666 (Unwanted) SIP response code, allowing
called parties to indicate that the call or message was unwanted.
SIP entities may use this information to adjust how future calls from
this calling party are handled for the called party or more broadly.
This is part of the larger toolkit of SIP tools being developed to
help mitigate the issue of large-scale unwanted phone calls.
Working Group Summary
The period of discussion for this draft was uncharacteristically short and
vigorous for the SIPCORE working group, with over 150 messages spanning a
three-month period. Support for the mechanism was universal, with the only
real point of contention being how far the document should go in prescribing
specific behaviors by network elements upon receipt of the response code. The
current version reflects carefully crafted wording that reflects the intention
of the code while avoiding the concerns of those parties that did not want to
see future call-rejection behavior normatively defined.
Document Quality
The document has been well reviewed within the SIP working group. While no
implementations are known to yet exist, the need for this new response code
has been brought to the IETF by the United States FCC and major US
telecommunications carriers as a necessary tool for fighting unwanted phone
calls. There is a strong implication that these parties plan to ensure a
wide-scale roll-out of the response code, at least within the United States,
and likely elsewhere.
Personnel
Adam Roach is the document shepherd. Ben Campbell is the responsible
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.
This is a short document. The shepherd has read every version in their
entirety as they were published.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The scope of reviews performed seems adequate and approrpriate.
(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.
The document requires no specialized expertise beyond that possessed by
regular participants in the SIPCORE working group.
(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.
The shepherd has no such 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.
The author has confirmed that no such declaration is necessary.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There has been no IPR disclosure 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?
Discussion on the document has involved a substantial percentage of those
participants in SIPCORE who can be readily identified as "active." Based on
mailing list discussions, agreement on the -03 version of the document is
universal.
(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 appeal or discontent has been expressed.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
The document passes the automated nits check and a manual examination
against the checklist.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review requirements are triggered by this document, aside from any
required by IANA process.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
They have.
(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?
All normative references are to published RFCs.
(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.
Thre are no downward normative references.
(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 published 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).
The names of the tables are precise; the registrations include all fields
named in the tables; and the registration of values by this document are in
accordance with registration policies for the associated tables. The values
being registered are consistent with the document text.
(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.
This document does not add any IANA registries.
(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 no formal language defined in this document.