[martini] Draft PROTO writeup for MARTINI GIN Document
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Sun, 10 October 2010 18:50 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6653A6827 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.825
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.825 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.773, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ETumjd9sHqqj for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s14.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s14.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.89]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05243A6830 for <martini@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU137-DS8 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s14.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:51:10 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [24.19.29.20]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU137-DS8C2AEA90634701BBA09A693520@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: martini@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:51:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0157_01CB6871.6FCBC710"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcrrvaKxbDWoul6pSgqETCs+ydNLPx86tnHQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2010 18:51:10.0643 (UTC) FILETIME=[1AF9C030:01CB68AC]
Subject: [martini] Draft PROTO writeup for MARTINI GIN Document
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini>
List-Post: <mailto:martini@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:50:17 -0000
PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-martini-gin ================================================= http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-martini-gin (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? Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed the document, and believe it is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been extensively discussed on the MARTINI WG mailing list. The discussion has included representatives from both the PBX and service-provider communities as well as participants in SIP Forum. As a result, the reviews appear to have been reasonably thorough and representative. (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 concerns. (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? There appears to be strong consensus behind the document, which has been evaluated against the solution requirements (and appears to meet all of them). (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? IDNits are clean: idnits 2.12.05 tmp/draft-ietf-martini-gin-09.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (September 28, 2010) is 12 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- (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]. The references in the document have been split into normative and informative. Normative references are all stable documents published as RFCs. (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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? The IANA Considerations section exists (section 9). The document does not create a new registry or describe an Expert Review process. (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? Not applicable. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines a mechanism by which a SIP server acting as a traditional Private Branch Exchange (SIP-PBX) can register with a SIP Service Provider (SSP) to receive phone calls for UAs designated by phone numbers. The mechanism requires that the multiple AoRs being registered are each globally unique, which is the case for fully qualified AoRs representing E.164 numbers. Working Group Summary Since this document relates to the registration of multiple AoRs in a single exchange, much of the discussion centered around the implications and limitations of the scheme. In particular, there was extensive discussion on potential requirements for globally reachable contact URIs, as well as the circumstances under which the multiple AoRs being registered would each be globally unique. Although the globally unique AoR requirement can be met for email-style URIs as well as URIs representing E.164 numbers, this document chooses to focus on URIs representing E.164 numbers only. Document Quality The document has been reviewed by participants within the IETF MARTINI WG, including SIP service providers as well as representatives from the PBX vendor community. It has gone through MARTINI WG last call. Personnel Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd for this document. Gonzalo Camarillo is the responsible AD.
- [martini] Draft PROTO writeup for MARTINI GIN Doc… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [martini] Draft PROTO writeup for MARTINI GIN… Adam Roach