(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Intended status: Standards Track
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
The document contains normative procedures.
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Yes.
(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:
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.
SIP provides a means of preventing infinite request forwarding loop in
[RFC3261], and a means of mitigating parallel forking amplification floods in
[RFC5393]. Neither document normatively defines specific behavior for B2BUAs,
however.
Unbounded SIP request loops have actually occurred in SIP deployments, numerous
times. The cause of loops is usually misconfiguration, but the reason they have
been unbounded/unending is they crossed B2BUAs that reset the Max-Forwards
value in the SIP requests they generated on their UAC side. Although such
behavior is technically legal per [RFC3261] because a B2BUA is a UAC, the
resulting unbounded loops have caused service outages and make troubleshooting
difficult.
Furthermore, [RFC5393] also provides a mechanism to mitigate the impact of
parallel forking amplification issues, through the use of a "Max-Breadth"
header field. If a B2BUA does not pass on this header field, parallel forking
amplification is not mitigated with the [RFC5393] mechanism.
This document defines normative requirements for Max-Forwards and Max-Breadth
header field behaviors of B2BUAs, in order to mitigate the effect of loops and
parallel forking amplification.
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 rough?
The WG path of this document was reasonably short and efficient. Several
technical comments were made during reviews and all were resolved with
consensus.
There is consensus in the STRAW WG to publish this document.
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?
The guidelines and procedures in the document is based on input and experience
from the implementer community.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?
Christer Holmberg (christer.holmberg@ericsson.com -- STRAW WG co-chair).
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
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 IESG.
The document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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 took place.
No.
(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 concerns here.
No 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?
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.
(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 WG as a whole understand and agree with it.
(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.)
No.
(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 thorough.
idnits 2.13.00
/tmp/draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-loop-detection-04.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
No issues found here.
No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not Applicable.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(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?
No.
(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.
No.
(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.
No.
(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 request or reference to 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.
This document makes no request to IANA.
(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.
This document does not use formal language such as XML code, BNF rules or MIB
definitions.