Protocol Action: 'DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP-Change Process' to Best Current Practice (draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-03.txt)
The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, 12 July 2016 17:02 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C470712D536; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: The IESG <email@example.com>
To: "IETF-Announce" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP-Change Process' to Best Current Practice (draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-03.txt)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:02:38 -0700
Cc: The IESG <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <ietf-announce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-announce>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:02:39 -0000
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 thatâs 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!