Updates to Asserted Identity in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sipping-update-pai-09

[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document, and I don't want to slow publication, but shouldn't the IANA
registrations for P-Asserted-Identity and P-Preferred-Identity in the SIP Parameters
Header Fields Registry be updated to point to both RFC 3325 and this document?

[Ballot comment]
Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Francis Dupont
  on 2009-05-06:

  - Behaviour -> Behavior (i.e., American spelling)

  - ToC page 2: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

  - 1 page 3: the right place to introduce common abbrevs: UAC, UAS, URI...

  - 2 page 3: UAC and URI abbrevs should be introduced

  - 2 page 4: same for UAS

  - 2 page 4: standardised -> standardized

  - 3.1 page 4: same for PSTN (I suggest in "o  PSTN gateways;")

  - 3.2 page 6: poor wording:
    "with methods that are not provided for in RFC 3325 or any other RFC."

  - 6 page 10: standardised -> standardized

  - 7 page 10 (title): Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-sipping-update-pai-09.txt

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com) on 27 January 2009


(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, the document has been adequately reviewed.
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 2.11.01 and
there are no 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].

Yes, the document references are split. All references are published
RFCs.

(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, the IANA sections exists and appropriately states that this
document has no
actions for IANA.

(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?

There is no formal language in this 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

SIP has a mechanism for conveying the asserted identity of
the
originator of a request by means of the P-Asserted-Identity
header
field. This header field is specified for use in requests
using a
number of SIP methods, in particular the INVITE method.
However,
RFC 3325 does not specify the insertion of this header
field by a
trusted UAC, does not specify the use of
P-Asserted-Identity and
P-Preferred-Identity header fields with certain SIP methods
such
as UPDATE, REGISTER, MESSAGE and PUBLISH, and does not
specify
how to handle an unexpected number of URIs or unexpected
URI
schemes in these header fields. This document extends RFC
3325
to cover these situations.

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

Document Quality
This document has no normative protocol impacts.

The document has been thorughly reviewed in the SIPPING WG
with
WG participants providing detailed reviews and comments for

the initial WG review, during each of the two WGLCs and
following the WGLCs to ensure the document was
updated consistent with WG consensus. There has been
extensive
face to face meeting and WG mailing list discussions.

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