Requirements for Management of Overload in the Session Initiation Protocol
RFC 5390

[Ballot discuss]
In the SecDir Review by Juergen Schoenwaelder, he suggests that a
  discussion of denial-of-service attack mitigation should be added.
  An extensive discussion is not needed, but some suggestions to
  implementors does seem prudent.

PROTO STATEMENT: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-02

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com) on 31 January 2008


(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?

Mary Barnes is the document shepherd. She has reviewed this version of
the document and believes it is ready.

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

Yes, the document has been adequately reviewed. There was signficant WG

input into the development of this document. Three members of the WG
(Spencer Dawkins, Volker Hilt and Tolga Asveren) reviewed the document
thoroughly during WGLC and post-WGLC. Additional WG members also
reviewed
the document post-WGLC (Brett Tate, Janet Gunn, and Timothy Moran).
The author has addressed all comments and concerns that have been
raised.
There are no concerns over the depth or breadth of the reviews.

(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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

There are no specific concerns or issues. There is no IPR disclosure.

(1.e) 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?

There is WG consensus behind this document and no one has
expressed concerns about its progression.

(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.

(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?

Yes. The draft has been validated for nits using idnits 2.06.01. There
is one nit
about a draft having been upversioned that will naturally be fixed.

(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].

Yes, there are only informative references for this document, since it
is
Informational.

(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 suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. 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?

Yes, the IANA considerations section exists and reflects that there are
no IANA considerations for this document.

(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?

Since this is an Informational requirements document, there are no
sections
written in a formal language.

(1.k) 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
Overload occurs in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
networks when
proxies and user agents have insuffient resources to
complete the
processing of a request. SIP provides limited support for
overload
handling through its 503 response code, which tells an
upstream
element that it is overloaded. However, numerous problems
have been
identified with this mechanism. This draft summarizes the
problems
with the existing 503 mechanism, and provides some
requirements for a
solution.

Working Group Summary
The SIPPING WG supports the development and advancement of
this document.

Document Quality
This document defines no new protocol elements. The
document has
been thoroughly reviewed by members of the SIPPING WG
and members of the design team working on modeling and
simulations
for SIP overload.

Personnel
Mary Barnes is the WG chair shepherd. Jon Peterson is the
responsible Area director.