PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-core-07
To be Published as: Proposed Standard
Prepared by: Yana Stamcheva (email@example.com)
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed 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?
This document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard.
(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:
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
This document specifies the fondation underlying the bidirectional protocol mappings between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Because of the wide deployment of both technologies it is important to clearly define mappings between them for the sake of interworking. This document inaugurates a series of SIP-XMPP interworking specifications by defining the architectural assumptions underlying such mappings as well as the mapping of addresses and error conditions.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
This document has been initially reviewed in the DISPATCH WG as per the RAI area process for new work. The STOX WG has been chartered as a result of the submission of this and other documents that aim to define specifications for interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) based systems. This document has been subjected to a number of thorough reviews initially in the DISPATCH WG and in the STOX WG after its creation. There were no controversial points regarding it.
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 already several vendors having full or partial implementations of the specification, among which Jabber/Cisco, Kamailio (OpenSER), AG Projects (Silk Server). Some of the people behind these implementations have actively participated in the discussions in the WG.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Yana Stamcheva is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Gonzalo Camarillo.
(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 Document Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document and thinks it is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. The document has been out for a few years and was subjected to thorough reviews. All reviewers' comments have been addressed.
(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
(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
I have 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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosure that references this document has been 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?
The WGLC has revealed a solid consensus among the active members of the STOX WG for this document going forward to publishing. There were no objections.
(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.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
The document was checked using idnits 2.13.00. There is a warning about the date which is innocuous as well as a warning about an outdated reference to an earlier version of a draft. Both will be addressed by the RFC Editor.
There's also a possible down-reference warning, but it seems a false positive, because it is a reference to UNICODE, which is indeed a normative reference in this case.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews other than review in the STOX WG are required for this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, all references in the document exist either in the normative or the informative sections.
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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).
This document makes no requests of IANA.
(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.
(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.
No reviews or automated checks were required as this document does not use any formal language requiring such.