Shepherd writeup
rfc7316-07

PROTO questionnaire for:  draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind-09

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 7 February 2014 


   (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 follows the SIP change process (RFC 3427) for defining P-headers. 
The SIP change process allows publication of documents defining P-headers 
to be published as Informational.  This RFC type is indicated on the title page. 

    (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:

This document specifies the SIP P-Private-Network-Indication P-header
used by the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP).  The
P-Private-Network-Indication indicates that the message is part of
the message traffic of a private network, and identifies that private
network.  A private network indication allows nodes to treat private
network traffic according to a different set of rules than the set
applicable to public network traffic.
  
        Working Group Summary:
        Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
        it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
        about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
        document?
  
This document has been discussed in the DISPATCH WG.  The DISPATCH WG 
does not progress any documents as WG documents.  The DISPATCH WG
selects one the following actions for contributions to the WG that have been
adequately reviewed and discussed:
- None in the case of work items for which there is inadequate interest or 
feedback indicates that the work should not be progressed (e.g., it's a 
bad idea or not within scope for RAI area or IETF)
- New work item in currently chartered WG
- New WG or mini-WG in the case where the deliverable is likely a 
single document - e.g. a new SIP header
- IETF official BoF - typically for work items that are of broad interest 
and potential impact within the RAI area and across areas.
- Individual/AD sponsored - for items limited in scope and applicability

Individual/AD sponsored was the consensus of the DISPATCH WG
for this document and the AD(s) agreed to progress the document.  
There was no controversy around this decision.  

         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?

This document is required for the 3GPP/IMS specifications, thus any 
vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this specification.  
John Elwell thoroughly reviewed earlier versions of this document. 
In addition, James Yu provided a detailed review and Paul Kyzivat 
reviewed one of the more recent versions.  


         Personnel
         Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
         Director?

Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.  
Richard Barnes is the Responsible AD.

     (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 Shepherd has thoroughly reviewed this version of the document.  
       
     (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
         or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

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

There are no specific concerns or issues. 

    (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 discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
        disclosures.

No.

    (9) 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? 

There is WG consensus that AD sponsored is the best approach for 
progressing this document. No one has expressed concerns about its progression.  

    (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.

The document was checked using idnits 2.13.01  There are no nits to be 
addressed. 

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
         criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type 
         reviews.

Per the SIP change process, this document requires expert review 
as it defines P-headers.  John Elwell performed an earlier expert 
eview with additional review by other SIP experts more recently on the mailing list. 

    (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 
         interested community 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 defines a new SIP header field: P-Private-Network-
Indication.  The document clearly indicates that this header field 
needs to be registered in the SIP Parameters registry under the 
Header Fields subregistry.

    (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 defines no new IANA registries.  

    (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate  
         sections of the document written in a formal language, such as 
         XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The ABNF for this document was validated using Bill Fenner's ABNF web
parsing tool.
 

 
Back