(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?
*Informational.*
* *
*See section 1.1 of the draft for more details around the reason behind
this choice.***
(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:
*The "music on hold" feature is one of the most desired features of
telephone systems in the business environment. "Music on hold" is
where, when one party to a call has the call "on hold", that party's
telephone provides an audio stream (often music) to be heard by the
other party. Architectural features of SIP make it difficult to
implement music-on-hold in a way that is fully compliant with the
standards. The implementation of music-on-hold described in this
document is fully effective and standards-compliant, and has a number
of advantages over the methods previously documented. In particular,
it is less likely to produce peculiar user interface effects and more
likely to work in systems which perform authentication than the
music-on-hold method described in section 2.3 of RFC 5359.*
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?
*This document is not the product of a working group. However, the document
has been discussed in the SIPPING and SIPCORE working group and got
feedback from the sip-implementors mailing list.*
* *
* *
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?
*It seems that there are many implementations out there for this mechanism:*
*Dale believes that Polycom SIP phones use this technique.*
* *
*Dale also got the following response from John Riordan at Junction
Networks related to their OnSIP hosted PBX:*
*
John Riordan at Junction Networks
<**john@junctionnetworks.com*<john@junctionnetworks.com>
*> reports:**
>> We've been running production MOH services on this for years now and
>> user agents produced by significant companies have supported it for
>> a while.
and:
>> Good to hear. And I would be happy to be used as a reference.***
* *
* *
*John Riordan (of Junction Networks) reports that Cisco/Linksys SPA**
phones use this system, but apparently Cisco does not document it:
From: John Riordan <**john@riordan.org**>**
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-worley-service-example
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:58:55 -0400
Cisco's "SPA" models implement it, however we are not aware of any
Cisco documentation that references 'worley'. These models were
originally sold under the 'Linksys' brand. There are instructions on
configuring MoH in manuals - for example page 96 of
**
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/csbpipp/ip_phones/administration/guide/spa500_admin.pdf
**
- but there is no reference to worley that we've seen. We discovered
support during our phone evaluation process - we have a little testing
lab that reviews user agents from all over the place and follows a
process similar to
**http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Phone+Certification+Process
*
* *
* *
* *
*The phone certification process for SIPxecs PBX**
(**http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Phone+Certification+Process**)
**
lists draft-worley-service-example-09 as the relevant standard for
music-on-hold. (-09 is technically the same as -12.)*
* *
* *
* *
*Personnel:*
* *
*Document Shepherd: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef*
*Responsible Area Director: Richard Barnes*
(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 shepherd has reviewed version 11 of the document (**
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-worley-service-example-11*<http:tools.ietf.org="" html="" draft-worley-service-example-11=""> *) and provided
feedback to the author. The author corrected, improved, and added more details
to various areas in the document based on that feedback.*
*The Sheppard has reviewed version 12 (**
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-worley-service-example/?include_text=1
*<https: datatracker.ietf.org="" doc="" draft-worley-service-example=""
?include_text="1"> *) of the document for technical quality and completeness.
The document is ready to be considered by the IESG.*
(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.
*None.*
(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?
*This document is not the product of a working group. However, it has been
reviewed and discussed by a number of key contributors in the SIPPING and
SIPCORE working groups and received feedback from the sip-implementors
mailing list. *
*See section 8.2 Informative References for more information on the
feedback provided by various contributors.*
* *
(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.
*Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :*
* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* *
* ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section*
* 2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case*
* when there are no actions for IANA.)*
* *
* ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the*
* recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119*
* keywords. *
* *
* RFC 2119 keyword, line 838: '...e indicates "the request SHOULD
NOT be...'*
* RFC 2119 keyword, line 902: '...load type number SHOULD be used
for th...'*
* *
* Miscellaneous warnings:*
* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* *
* -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may*
* have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you*
* have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant*
* the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore*
* this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. *
* (See the Legal Provisions document at*
* http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)*
* *
* -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code*
* sections in the document, please surround them with '' and*
* '' lines.*
* *
* *
* Checking references for intended status: Informational*
* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* *
* -- Missing reference section? 'Sipping' on line 1528 looks like a reference*
* *
* -- Missing reference section? 'Sip-implementors' on line 1514 looks like a*
* reference*
* *
* *
* Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).*
* *
* Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about*
* the items above.*
* *
(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 needed.*
(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).
*IANA section is not needed.*
(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.
*None.*
(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.
*None is needed.*