The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Pending Additions Event Package
draft-ietf-sipping-pending-additions-05

[Ballot comment]
I suspect the RFC Editor would catch all of these, but I noticed a few nits.  I have
suggested changes, but please review to be sure I interpreted things correctly!

Section 3, last sentence:

s/experimented/experienced/

Section 8, para 2 first sentence:
s/even package/event package/

Section 8, para 4 first sentence:
s/confidentially/confidentiality/

[Ballot discuss]
In section 5.1.2, SUBSCRIBE Bodies, the specification does not say how to handle
an unrecognized body.  While the definition of a body is outside the scope of this
spec, I think processing for an unrecognized body should be conssitent and defined
here.

[Ballot comment]
From David Black's Gen-ART review.

  In Secction 5.1.2:
  >
  > A SUBSCRIBE for Pending Additions events MAY contain a body.  This
  > body would serve the purpose of filtering the subscription.  The
  > definition of such a body is outside the scope of this specification.
  >
  How is that supposed to be interoperable?  A better approach would be
  to prohibit bodies now and allow a future specification to define them.

[Ballot discuss]
From David Black's Gen-ART review.

  In Section 5.1.7:
  >
  > NOTIFY requests contain full state.  The subscriber does not need
  > to perform any type of information aggregation.
  >
  This text doesn't explain "the process followed by the subscriber upon
  receipt of a NOTIFY request, including any logic required to form a
  coherent resource state (if applicable)" (see Section 4.4.8 of
  RFC 3265).  This text needs to be rewritten and expanded.

[Ballot comment]
Section 5.1.9 states for congestion avoidance event notifications should not be sent more often then every 5 seconds. How well figured out is this number? Is this another SIP overload resulting mechanism?

Will a general SIP overload mechanism effect also these notification transactions?

I only want to make sure that this isn't digging a deeper hole for the guys that trying to get out of the existing SIP overload one.

IANA Evaluation comments:

The new version of this document appears to be requesting two additional assignments:

1) registration of 'resource-lists-diff' in the XML schema registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html (NOTE: this document does not appear to be requesting a corresponding registration in the XML ns registry)

2) registration of the media type 'application/resource-lists-diff+xml.' QUESTION: has this media type been reviewed by the ietf-types list and/or the media type reviewer?

IANA Last Call comments:


Action #1:
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "SIP Event Types Namespace - per [RFC3427]"
registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-events
sub-registry "event packages"

Package Name + Type + Contact + Reference
consent-pending-addition + package + Gonzalo Camarillo  + [RFC-ietf-sipping-pending-additions-03.txt]


Action #2:
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the XML namespace registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html

ID + URI + Registration template + Reference
consent-status + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:consent-status + [template from section 7.2] + [RFC-ietf-sipping-pending-additions-03.txt]


Action #3:
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the XML schema registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html

ID + URI + Filename + Reference
consent-status + urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:consent-status + [XML from section 4] + [RFC-ietf-sipping-pending-additions-03.txt]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.

PROTO Write-up

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Mary Barnes is the document shepherd. She has reviewed this version of
the document and believes it is ready.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes. Ben Campbell provided the most recent detailed WG member review,
with other WG members reviewing previous versions. There are no
concerns over the depth or breadth of the reviews.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

There are no specific concerns or issues. There is no IPR disclosure.

(1.e) 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?

There is WG consensus behind this document and no one has
expressed concerns about its progression.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. The draft has been validated for nits using idnits 2.04.07.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, the document references are split. There is a normative reference
to a SIP WG document (draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework) which has
already completed WGLC and should be progressed soon. There are 3 other
normative reference SIMPLE WG documents, two of which are already in the
RFC Editor's Q:
draft-ietf-simple-xcap-12 and draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05. The
third document(draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff) should be progressed soon.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes, there is an appropriate IANA section with the necessary
registrations
defined.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Yes, XML schema was validated.

(1.k) 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 SIP Pending Additions event
package.
This event package is used by SIP relays to inform user
agents about the consent-related status of the entries
to be added to
a resource list.

Working Group Summary
The SIPPING WG supports the development and advancement of
this document.

Document Quality
This document defines no new protocol elements, but rather
defines a new SIP Event Package and registers a new XML
namespace and a new XML schema.
The document was thoroughly reviewed within the SIPPING WG.

Ben Campbell provided a detailed review during and post
WGLC.

Personnel
Mary Barnes is the WG chair shepherd. Jon Peterson is the
responsible Area director.