SOS Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter for Marking of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Requests related to Emergency Services
draft-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter-11

[Note]: 'This draft is moving from a simple mechanism that indicates a registration does not have the credentials for a successful normal registration to a mechanism that implies a significant structure on how emergency calling would work when using this. This is an controversial enough topic that it is very hard as an AD to ensure that this has consensus as an AD sponsored document. Requests for comments have not resulted in enough participation to make it clear there is consensus. At this point in time, I don''t feel I can progress this as AD sponsored.' added by Robert Sparks

[Note]: 'This draft is moving from a simple mechanism that indicates a registration does not have the credentials for a successful normal registration to a mechanism that implies a significant structure on how emergency calling would work when using this. This is an controversial enough topic that it is very hard as an AD to ensure that this has consensus as an AD sponsored document. Requests for comments have not resulted in enough participation to make it clear there is consensus. At this point in time, I don''t feel I can progress this as AD sponsored.' added by Cullen Jennings

[Note]: 'This draft is moving from a simple mechanism that indicates a registration does not have the credentials for a successful normal registration to a mechanism that implies a significant structure on how emergency calling would work when using this. This is an controversial enough topic that it is very as an AD to ensure that this has consensus as an AD sponsored document. Requests for comments have not resulted in enough participation to make it clear there is consensus. At this point in time, I don''t feel I can progress this as AD sponsored.' added by Cullen Jennings

PROTO Writeup for draft-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter
=================================================

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter-06

(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?

Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd.
The document is ready for publication. Cullen Jennings, who is the
responsible AD, indicated that an additional review from SIP experts
may be performed.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document is used as a normative reference by 3GPP
documents, and those 3GPP documents are in process of
implementation by a number of vendors. The document was
reviewed by ECRIT working group members and an expert reviewer, namely
Gonzallo Camarillo, was appointed. His review can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06037.html
His comments got addressed in subsequent draft versions.

(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

There are no concerns with the document.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

This document is not a product of the ECRIT working group but required
by the 3GPP for their Release 7 emergency services architecture.
There are architectural differences between the IETF and the 3GPP
emergency services architecture whereby the solution developed in this
document is currenly only needed by the 3GPP.

There is, however, consensus within the ECRIT WG to publish the
document.

(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. There were only questions regarding the overall interworking between

IETF and 3GPP when it comes to work that is of interest for the 3GPP
only
but has to be carried out in the IETF. This relates to the ongoing
discussion about the SIP Change Process.

(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?

The ABNF parses with no errors.
Nits have been checked. The errors regarding RFC 2119 boilerplate seem
to
be incorrect.

(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].

The references in the document have been split into normative and
informative.
Normative references are all stable documents published as 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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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?

IANA considerations exist within the document and are consistent with
the body of the document. The new URI parameter has been specified as
defined by RFC 3261.

The document requests IANA to register the URI parameter.

(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?

Not applicable.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document defines a new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI) parameter intended for marking SIP
registration requests related to emergency services. The usage of
this new URI parameter complements the usage of the Service Uniform
Resource Name (URN) and is not intended to replace it.

Working Group Summary

This document is not the product of a working group. The document was
considered to become an ECRIT working group item. However, based on
the current work schedule and the urgency of the document the decision
was made to progress it as an AD sponsored document (initially with
Jon Peterson as the AD sponsoring it).

Document Quality

The document has been reviewed by IETF ECRIT WG members and by
the 3GPP community. An expert review has been carried out by
Gonzalo Camarillo.

The implementation status of this document is unknown.

Personnel

Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document. Cullen
Jennings is the responsible AD.

In proto write up, replace

The document originally came from the 3GPP and was presented to the
IETF because a Standards Track extension to SIP was needed.

with

The document is used as a normative reference by 3GPP
documents, and those 3GPP documents are in process of
implementation by a number of vendors.

In proto write up, replace

The document originally came from the 3GPP and was presented to the
IETF because a Standards Track extension to SIP was needed.

with

The document is used as a normative reference by 3GPP
documents, and those 3GPP documents are in process of
implementation by a number of vendors.

PROTO Writeup for draft-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter
=================================================

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patel-ecrit-sos-parameter-06


(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?

Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd.
The document is ready for publication. Cullen Jennings, who is the
responsible AD, indicated that an additional review from SIP experts
may be performed.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document originally came from the 3GPP and was presented to the IETF

because a Standards Track extension to SIP was needed. The document was
reviewed by ECRIT working group members and an expert reviewer, namely
Gonzallo Camarillo, was appointed. His review can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06037.html
His comments got addressed in subsequent draft versions.

(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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

There are no concerns with the document.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

This document is not a product of the ECRIT working group but required
by the 3GPP for their Release 7 emergency services architecture.
There are architectural differences between the IETF and the 3GPP
emergency services architecture whereby the solution developed in this
document is currenly only needed by the 3GPP.

There is, however, consensus within the ECRIT WG to publish the
document.

(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. There were only questions regarding the overall interworking between

IETF and 3GPP when it comes to work that is of interest for the 3GPP
only
but has to be carried out in the IETF. This relates to the ongoing
discussion about the SIP Change Process.

(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?

The ABNF parses with no errors.
Nits have been checked. The errors regarding RFC 2119 boilerplate seem
to
be incorrect.

(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].

The references in the document have been split into normative and
informative.
Normative references are all stable documents published as 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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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?

IANA considerations exist within the document and are consistent with
the body of the document. The new URI parameter has been specified as
defined by RFC 3261.

The document requests IANA to register the URI parameter.

(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?

Not applicable.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document defines a new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI) parameter intended for marking SIP
registration requests related to emergency services. The usage of
this new URI parameter complements the usage of the Service Uniform
Resource Name (URN) and is not intended to replace it.

Working Group Summary

This document is not the product of a working group. The document was
considered to become an ECRIT working group item. However, based on
the current work schedule and the urgency of the document the decision
was made to progress it as an AD sponsored document (initially with
Jon Peterson as the AD sponsoring it).

Document Quality

The document has been reviewed by IETF ECRIT WG members and by
the 3GPP community. An expert review has been carried out by
Gonzalo Camarillo.

The implementation status of this document is unknown.

Personnel

Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document. Cullen
Jennings is the responsible AD.

As required by RFC-to-be draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines,
this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up
for individual submissions via the IESG.

Changes are expected over time.  This version is dated February 5, 2007.


  (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?

The AD - Cullen Jennings has been appointed as Document Shepard for this document.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

Document has been expert reviewed by Gonzallo Camarillo and has had feedback provided by the ECRIT wG and 3GPP communities.

  (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.

There are no concerns with the document.

  (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document supports a strong requirement from 3GPP release 7 with consensus reached in IETF ECRIT WG supporting progress of the document.

  (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. There are no concerns with this document or the proposed technical solution.

  (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?

Nits to update - RFC 2119 boilerplate terms need to be corrected by removed "NOT RECOMMENDED" in section 2 of the I-D.
The ABNF parses with no errors.

  (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].

The references in the document have been split into normative and informative. Normative references are all stable documents published as 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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

IANA considerations exist within the document and are consistent with the body of the document. The new URI parameter has been specified as defined by RFC 3261. The document requests IANA to register the URI parameter.

  (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?

Not applicable.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

      Technical Summary

This document defines a new Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) parameter intended for marking SIP registration requests related to emergency services.  The usage of this new URI parameter complements the usage of the Service Uniform Resource Name (URN) and is not intended to replace it.

      Working Group Summary

There is WG consensus to publish this document.

      Document Quality

The document has been reviewed by IETF ECRIT WG members and by the 3GPP community. An expert review has been carried out by Gonzalo Camarillo.

[Note]: 'Need to track down status - Jon may have been AD sponsoring this. Talk to Hannes and Gonzallo was doing expert review.' added by Cullen Jennings

[Note]: 'Need to track down status - Jon may have been AD sponsoring this. Talk to Hannes and Gonzallo was doing expert review. <br><br>' added by Cullen Jennings