Session Initiation Protocol Service Examples
draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-15

[Ballot discuss]
This discuss has two parts: a discuss discuss on the intended status; and the usual
discuss on security considerations content.

I was suprised to see an examples document intended as a BCP.  It didn't feel quite
right to me, and I am not sure it matched up with 2026.  After reviewing the world
of BCPs, I  discovered that ample precedent exists with RFCs 3665, 3666, and 3725
and the content of those RFCs really supports BCP status.  Each of these documents
explains the context in which these examples or call flows represents best current
practice.

I did not find similar text in sipping-service-examples, though.  I found text that
indicated this call flows *aren't* necessarily best practice:

  Also, these
  flows do not represent the only way to implement these services -
  other approaches such as 3pcc (Third Party Call Control) [15] or
  Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUA) may be more appropriate in some
  circumstances.

Is this document really a BCP?  If so, what is the context where these call flows are
the most appropriate option?

Security Considerations:

While I am generally supportive of security considerations by reference, I have
a few problems in this case.  First, the security considerations are largely
in sipping-cc-framework, which is apprently a less mature document than this
BCP.  What are the prospects for that document?  Perhaps the content that applies
to the call flows in this document could be extracted or summarized in addition
to the reference.

Second, in the last paragraph, it would be helpful to explicitly note that [2]. [3], [6],
and [7] are the referenced documents.

Finally - and most importantly - it would be helpful to consider whether the choices
reflected in these call flows simplify the security considerations in any particular way.
Alternatively, do they exacerbate any particular problems?

[Ballot discuss]
This discuss has two parts: a discuss discuss on the intended status; and the usual
discuss on security considerations content.

I was suprised to see an examples document intended as a BCP.  It didn't feel quite
right to me, and I am not sure it matched up with 2026.  After reviewing the world
of BCPs, I  discovered that ample precedent exists with RFCs 3665, 3666, and 3725
and the content of those RFCs really supports BCP status.  Each of these documents
explains the context in which these examples or call flows represents best current
practice.

I did not find similar text in sipping-service-examples, though.  I found text that
indicated this call flows *aren't* necessarily best practice:

                                                                                        Also, these
  flows do not represent the only way to implement these services -
  other approaches such as 3pcc (Third Party Call Control) [15] or
  Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUA) may be more appropriate in some
  circumstances.

Is this document really a BCP?  If so, what is the context where these call flows are
the most appropriate option?

Security Considerations:

While I am generally supportive of security considerations by reference, I have
a few problems in this case.  First, the security considerations are largely
in sipping-cc-framework, which is apprently a less mature document than this
BCP.  What are the prospects for that document?  Perhaps the content that applies
to the call flows in this document could be extracted or summarized in addition
to the reference.

Second, in the last paragraph, it would be helpful to explicitly note that [2]. [3], [6],
and [7] are the referenced documents.

Finally - and most importantly - it would be helpful to consider whether the choices
reflected in these call flows simplify the security considerations in any particular way.
Alternatively, do they exacerbate any particular problems?

[Ballot discuss]
This discuss has two parts: a discuss discuss on the intended status; and the usual
discuss on security considerations content.

I was suprised to see an examples document intended as a BCP.  It didn't feel quite
right to me, and I am not sure it matched up with 2026.  After reviewing the world
of BCPs, I  discovered that ample precedent exists with RFCs 3665, 3666, and 3725
and the content of those RFCs really supports BCP status.  Each of these documents
explains the context in which these examples or call flows represents best current
practice.

I did not find similar text in sipping-service-examples, though.  I found text that
indicated this call flows *aren't* necessarily best practice:

                                                                                        Also, these
  flows do not represent the only way to implement these services -
  other approaches such as 3pcc (Third Party Call Control) [15] or
  Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUA) may be more appropriate in some
  circumstances.

Is this document really a BCP?  If so, what is the context where these call flows are
the most appropriate option?

Security Considerations:

While I am generally supportive of security considerations by reference, I have
a few problems in this case.  First, the security considerations are largely
in sipping-cc-framework, which is apprently a less mature document than this
BCP.  What are the prospects for that document?

[Ballot comment]
Questions about call flow in section 2.16. If there was a parallel forking proxy between Alice and Bob, do we end up in a situation where Bill will send a replaces with a to-tag but Alice will not know the to-tag for the dialog? I'n too dazed from reading the document to figure out if there is an issue here but could one of the authors have a look at it for a minute and see if there are any problems.

Thanks, Cullen

[Ballot comment]
Questions about call flow in section 2.16. If there was a parallel forking proxy between Alice and Bob, do we end up in a situation where Bill will send a replaces with a to-tag but Alice will not know the to-tag for the dialog? I'n too dazed from reading the document to figure out if there is an issue here but could someone look at it for a minute and see if there are any problems.

Thanks, Cullen

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?

Gonzalo Camarillo, who has reviewed the document and believes is ready
for publication.

(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?

A set of dedicated reviewers have reviewed the document. There are no
concerns about the depth 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 concers. No IPR disclosure has been filed about this document.

(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?


Strong consensus of the whole WG.

(1.f) 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
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? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Yes, the document satisfies ID nits.

(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].

All normative references are RFCs.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations 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 the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?


The document contains an empty IANA Considerations Section.

(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?

No formal language is used in the document.

(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
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

This document gives examples of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
call flows. Elements in these call flows include SIP User Agents and
Clients, SIP Proxy and Redirect Servers. Scenarios include SIP
Registration and SIP session establishment. Call flow diagrams and
message details are shown.


Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?

No.

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 existing implementations of the services this document describes.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'


The document Shepherd is Gonzalo Camarillo. The responsible AD is Jon
Peterson.