(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?
Proposed Standard. It is an extension to two Proposed Standards.
(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.
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?
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?
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support' to
Proposed Standard (draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-0x.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support'
(draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-0x.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is not a product of any Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Richard Barnes.
A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yousef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-0x/
Technical Summary
This document defines two new mechanisms to allow a SIP User Agent to discover
if a SIP conference focus (signaling control point for a conference) supports
CCMP, Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol. One mechanism is a new
parameter for the SIP Call-Info header field. The other mechanism is a new
service-uri parameter in the SIP conference event package. The two methods are
not mutually exclusive and can be used individually or together.
Working Group Summary
This document is not the product of a working group. However, the work has
been discussed in the XCON and DISPATCH working groups.
Document Quality
Some vendors have indicated their plan to implement the specification.
Personnel
Alan Johnston is the document shepherd and Gonzalo Camarillo is the responsible
Area Director.
(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 the short 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 additional reviews are needed.
(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 additional 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?
This document is not the product of a working group. However, it has been
discussed by a number of key contributors to the former XCON, DISPATCH, and
SIPCORE working groups.
(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.
None.
(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?
All references in the document are normative.
(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.
Updates RFC 3261 and 4575. These RFCs are listed in the header, abstract, and
introduction.
(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).
The document has one IANA considerations section, for the new SIP parameter
'purpose'. There needs to be a second IANA considerations for URI purposes
The IANA considerations have been reviewed and are consistent with the rest of
the document.
(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.
The ABNF extensions to Call-Info have been reviewed.