Network Working Group K. Drage
Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: May 22, 2008 November 19, 2007
A Process for Handling Essential Corrections to the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)
draft-drage-sip-essential-correction-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
Abstract
The Session Initial Protocol (SIP) defined in RFC 3261 and a large
number of extensions forms a considerable body of work, which through
sheer size has a number of errors that require correction. This
document explains the process for managing essential corrections to
SIP.
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
1. Introduction
RFC 3261 [1] and its extensions have already had a number of issues
identified against it, and other issues are expected. These are
issues where the normative text of the already published
specification is found to be either in error, or lacking, such that
interoperability is endangered.
There has been a reluctance to document these issues for a number of
reasons. A revision could either replace or update an existing RFC.
A replacement for an existing RFC would normally occur when there is
a need to progress from proposed standard to draft standard, and will
encompass substantially more work than merely documenting the
identified error. An update to an RFC still requires a whole new RFC
to be issued. This may be appear too complex for a one line
correction, or may just overwhelm potential submitters due to the
complexity of the process.
There is also a need to control the number of updating RFCs that
exist for any one specification. A situation where an RFC has 10 or
20 update RFCs clearly means that an implementor will miss at least
one of these documents. Therefore the target is to have the SIP RFC
or SIP extension RFC originally produced by the working group, and a
single RFC that updates that document. Any subsequent RFC will
therefore need to replace the any existing RFC that updates the
original RFC.
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
2. Objective
For SIP RFCs and RFCs specifying SIP extensions, provide clear
guidelines as to when corrective RFC content is required that updates
the original specification. If the work is an extension or of
editorial nature, then existing rules should be followed.
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
3. Process
Corrections will be proposed to the SIP working group.
All changes should be essential. An essential change is one where in
the absence of the correction, it will not be possible to implement
the specification contained in the original RFC in a manner to ensure
interoperability or correct operation. Clarifications, statements of
best practice, additional informative material, and editorial
revisions are in general not essential ? if publication of such
material is necessary, it should be published as a separate
informational RFC. The working group will analyse the proposed
correction and decide whether it is essential.
The correction will be processed as an internet-draft belonging to
the SIP working group. For management purposes, there may be one
correction or more corrections per internet draft. The underlying
principle for splitting essential corrections into different internet
drafts is one of envisaged amount of working group time to process a
correction. A correction where the solution is likely to be
contentious should be submitted as a separate internet draft to one
where the solution is likely to be readily accepted, unless one is
dependent on the other. An informal naming technique will be used to
assist in readily identifying these drafts; the appearance of "? fix"
as the last part of the filename before the version number will be
expected to indicate such a draft.
When complete the internet draft will be working group last called by
the SIP working group, along with any required expert review that may
be appropriate to the contents.
At an appropriate period in time, an editor working on behalf of the
SIP working group will compile all changes to the original RFC that
have successfully completed working group last call into a internet
draft, along with the contents of all previous RFC that update the
SIP RFC requiring correction.
The internet draft will be submitted to IESG as a proposed standards
track RFC for approval for publication, without any further working
group last call. This RFC will update the original SIP RFC or SIP
extension RFC, and replace any previous update RFCs for that original
RFC.
Further corrections after this point will repeat the process.
A web page will be maintained by the SIP WG chairs and the
corrections editor giving the current status of corrections in
progress. This is currently at:
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
http://www.softarmor.com/mediawiki/index.php/Essential_Correction
s_Tracking
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
4. Required Contents For a Change Request Internet-Draft
In addition to the normal rules for contents of a standards track
RFC, sections to the RFC should document the following (probably as
separate sections or subsections):
Reason for change. Text which explains why the change is necessary.
This should be focussed on identifying why the text in the existing
RFC is incorrect.
Summary of change. Enter text which describes the most important
components of the change. i.e. how the change is made.
Consequences if not approved. Enter here the consequences if this
change were to be rejected. Explain the issues that implementations
will have in the absence of this change, i.e. what fails to operate
correctly. This text should be drafted such that the working group
can make a decision as to whether the change is essential or not.
The change. Provide only the normative changes outside the context
of the sections of the corrected RFC. This section is for those
implementors who want to understand the normative changes at an
immediate view.
OPEN ISSUE: The above element has been inserted at the request of
participants at IETF#69. The above element requires further study,
both in the format it should take, and what occurs if after
publication, it is found to differ from the next element. Should one
element take precedence over the other, or do we sort it out at the
next reissue of the change RFC.
The change in detail. Clearly identify the section of the RFC to be
changed, and show precisely how the text changes. An implementor
should be able to take the original RFC and edit the change as
described to obtain the new approved text.
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
5. Security considerations
There are no security considerations relating to this document.
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
6. IANA considerations
This document requires no action by IANA.
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
7. References
[1] Rosenberg, J., "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", June 2002.
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
Author's Address
Keith Drage
Alcatel-Lucent
Quadrant, StoneHill Green, Westlea
Swindon, Wilts
UK
Email: drage@alcatel-lucent.com
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Essential Corrections to SIP November 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Drage Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 12]