Requirements for Management of Overload in the Session Initiation Protocol
RFC 5390
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from sipping-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2008-12-11
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2008-12-11
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5390' added by Cindy Morgan |
2008-12-09
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
2008-10-28
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-10-27
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2008-10-27
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-10-27
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-10-27
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2008-10-27
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-10-27
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Cindy Morgan |
2008-10-24
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2008-07-14
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-05.txt |
2008-06-20
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-06-19 |
2008-06-19
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2008-06-19
|
05 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-06-19
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-06-19
|
05 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-06-19
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-06-19
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-06-19
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-06-19
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-06-18
|
05 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-06-18
|
05 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-06-17
|
05 | Russ Housley | [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 … [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. |
2008-06-17
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-06-16
|
05 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-06-12
|
05 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson |
2008-06-12
|
05 | Jon Peterson | Ballot has been issued by Jon Peterson |
2008-06-12
|
05 | Jon Peterson | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-06-12
|
05 | Jon Peterson | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-06-19 by Jon Peterson |
2008-06-12
|
05 | Jon Peterson | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Jon Peterson |
2008-05-23
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-04.txt |
2008-05-21
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-03.txt |
2008-05-13
|
05 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-05-08
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. |
2008-05-08
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2008-05-02
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2008-05-02
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2008-04-29
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-04-29
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-04-29
|
05 | Jon Peterson | Last Call was requested by Jon Peterson |
2008-04-29
|
05 | Jon Peterson | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Jon Peterson |
2008-04-29
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-04-29
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-04-29
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-02-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | 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 … 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. |
2008-02-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested |
2008-01-25
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-02.txt |
2007-11-17
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-01.txt |
2007-06-01
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2006-11-28
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-00.txt |