Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(1) This document is Informational.  The document header indicates
Informational. The document lists some example call/message flows and snippits
of metadata. It supplements RFC 7865 which specifies the Session Initiation
Protocol Recording Metadata by providing examples to aid implementers. (2)
Document Announcement Write-Up: Technical Summary: This document lists call
flows with metadata snapshots sent from a Session Recording Client(SRC) to a
Session Recording Server(SRS).

Working Group Summary:

This document has had a relatively long gestation period in the working group,
this is because feedback from real implementations was thought important and
also it could not be completed before the SIPREC metadata specification (RFC
7865) was published

Document Quality:

There are multiple interoperable implementations of the protocol and metadata
shown in this draft.  Notably, the National Emergency Number Association (NENA)
has included the protocol, with the metadata described in this document in it’s
Next Generation 9-1-1 standard, and has held an interoperability event where
multiple implementations were tested. A number of recording vendors provided a
detailed review and comments on this draft.


Andrew Hutton is the Document Shepherd.  Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area

(3) I have completed a thorough review of the document and although the
document is difficult to review given that it has a lot of XML containing
UUID’s. I believe it is ready to be published.

(4) The document is quite difficult to review in detail but a number of
in-depth reviews by individuals/companies involved in the implementation have
taken place.

(5) There are many security and privacy issues related to the generation of the
metadata shown in this document however this document only shows examples and
the concerns have been addressed during the review of the associated metadata
specification itself (RFC 7865) therefore no addition reviews are needed.

(6) Neither the work group nor I have any concerns or issues.

(7) All three authors have 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.  All three declared that they have no IPR on this

(8) There are no IPR disclosures filed on the draft.

(9) As with many IETF working groups, interest in finishing has flagged. 
However, we had strong concurrence within the larger working group that the
document should be published.  There were no dissents.

(10) There are no threatened appeals and no dissenters, strong or otherwise.

(11) There is one minor nit in that there is a unused reference to RFC 6230
this is due to a change in a late revision of the document which changed the
reference. This should be handled in normal RFC editor processing.

(12) This document does not define any MIBs, media types or URNs, and thus no
reviews for those items is needed.

(13) The references are properly indicated to be informative there are no
normative references.

(14) There are no normative references in this draft.

(15) There are no normative references in this draft.

(16) This document does not change the status of any RFCs.

(17) There are no IANA considerations in this draft.

(18) The document does not create any new registries.

(19) This document does not contain any XML, BNF, MIB or other formal language
constructs.  The document does contain XML schemas.