DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP Change Process
RFC 7957

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com, draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP-Change Process' to Best Current Practice (draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-03.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP-Change Process'
  (draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-03.txt) as Best Current Practice

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Spencer Dawkins.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update/


Technical Summary

RFC 5727 defines several processes for the Real-time Applications
and Infrastructure (RAI) area.  These processes include the evolution
of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and related protocols, as
well as the operation of the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups.  This
document updates RFC 5727 to allow flexibility for the area and
working group structure, while preserving the SIP change processes.
It also generalizes the DISPATCH working group processes so that
they  can be easily adopted by other working groups.

Working Group Summary

This is effectively an ART area document, with some specificity to the 
process that’s been followed by the DISPATCH WG since 2009.  However, 
the process/model could also be applied to other areas.  The document 
was discussed on the DISPATCH WG mailing list. 

A number of helpful comments were received and addressed during 
Last Call. The only controversial point was a challenge from Harald 
Alvestrand and Richard Shockey as to whether ART should be using the 
DISPATCH process at all. The ART ADs are continuing that discussion, 
and that's their responsibility, but the shepherding AD is making the call that 
documenting the actual process that ART has been using since
it was created on May 28, 2015, and will continue to use while
the meta-discussion proceeds, is worth doing now.

Past performance does not guarantee future results, but the draft
that resulted in RFC 5727 took about 18 months to move through
the process, so significant changes to the way ART does business
may require a year or two, to work out the details.

Document Quality

Jon Mitchell provided the OPS-DIR review.
Vijay Gurbani provided the Gen-ART review.

Personnel

Mary Barnes is the Document Shepherd. 
Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note

OLD
   o  The dispatch-style working group determines an appropriate venue
      for the work.  The venue could be an existing working group.  If
      no appropriate group exists, it may develop a charter for a BoF, a
      new working group, or an exploratory group [RFC5111].  The group
      might also recommend that a proposal progress as an AD-sponsored
      individual draft, or even that a proposal should not be acted upon
      at the time.
NEW
   o  The dispatch-style working group determines an appropriate venue
      for the work.  The venue could be an existing working group.  If
      no appropriate group exists, it may develop a charter for a BoF or a
      new working group.  The group might also recommend that a proposal
      progress as an AD-sponsored individual draft, or even that a
      proposal should not be acted upon at the time.
END

RFC Editor: please also remove the reference to [RFC5111] in Informative References. Thanks!