[MEDIACTRL] Draft MRB -13 Shepherd Writeup
Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Fri, 06 July 2012 15:22 UTC
Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: mediactrl@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mediactrl@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE5D21F8766 for <mediactrl@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wx4-Vyh2LCkx for <mediactrl@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.254.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B76421F8773 for <mediactrl@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8]:60750 helo=[192.168.15.158]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1SnAMc-0003Y4-4S for mediactrl@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:22:34 -0700
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-46-356214858"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:22:31 -0400
Message-Id: <E99546F6-1A42-4B84-9DB5-20B677191825@standardstrack.com>
To: mediactrl@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Draft MRB -13 Shepherd Writeup
X-BeenThere: mediactrl@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <mediactrl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mediactrl>
List-Post: <mailto:mediactrl@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:22:20 -0000
This is what will accompany the -13, and hopefully final, draft of the MRB document. Thoughts welcome. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard, as indicated on the title page. ----- (2) 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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? ----- Technical Summary The MediaCtrl work group in the IETF has proposed an architecture for controlling media services. The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is used as the signaling protocol which provides many inherent capabilities for message routing. A need exists for intelligent, application level media service selection based on non-static signaling properties, especially in deployment architectures that include 1:M and M:N combinations of Application Servers and Media Servers. This document introduces a Media Resource Broker (MRB) entity which manages the availability of Media Servers and the media resource demands of Application Servers. The document includes potential deployment options for an MRB and appropriate interfaces to Application Servers and Media Servers. Working Group Summary The working group consensus on this document is solid. Two WGLCs were held, one after the initial consensus on the document, and one after extensive review and implementation experience dictated a number of small improvements to the protocol and its description. Personnel Dale Worley is the document shepherd. Robert Sparks is the responsible AD. ----- (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. Line by line reading as a relative newcomer to the work group. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? I [Dale] have no such concerns. The only plausible concern is that the protocol seems to be overly complex, in that it allows several different modes of operation for broadly similar actions. But the people involved in the draft are involved in practical deployments, and they have found the various alternatives in the protocol are necessary in various practical situations. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. See (4) above. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. I [Eric] have the concern that we do not properly use the xml:lang tag. Review from W3C folks have highlighted the incorrect use of the tag. There is a risk that a network element may take a snippet of a MRB protocol data unit, put it into an XML document, and inadvertently change the language of that XML document to the snippets' language. However, we do not today see any circumstance where this is likely to happen. To fix this would mean changing all of the MEDIACTRL protocol suite, not only the MRB protocol described by this document. Because of this, the work group felt that keeping things consistent was much more important than fixing this minor issue. Moreover, most of the MEDIACTRL protocols have many years of deployment experience in live networks. It is our estimation that changing all of the protocols to change only the xml:lang tag. would not see widespread deployment. Thus, it would not help interoperability, as any new implementations would be unaware that the industry was not following such a changed specification. The plan to remedy this error is to finish the work we have now. This MRB document is the last protocol document in the MEDIACTRL suite. This will enable us to close this work group. Then we can charter a new work group with the task of reviewing the deployment experience, potentially brining the specifications to Internet Standard, and fix this outstanding xml:lang issue. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. AT&T has filed 3 IPR disclosures regarding the predecessor draft, draft-boulton-mediactrl-mrb: ID # 897, ID # 898, and ID # 899. AT&T is listed as offering RAND licensing terms. The IPR disclosures were submitted in 2007. The chairs solicited feedback from the WG twice, in 2007 and 2008. There seems to have been no response to the solicitation and no further discussion of the IPR issues on any IETF mailing list, suggesting that no controversy ensued. I would expect that any implementers who worried that the IPR would be burdensome would have spoken up. Neither of the chairs at the time (Eric Burger and Spencer Dawkins), nor two of the three authors (Chris Boulton and Lorenzo Miniero) work for AT&T, so there seems to be no reason to suspect undue influence of AT&T to promote its commercial interests. (The third author, Gary Munson, does work for AT&T.) The WGLC of 7 Feb 2012 specifically mentioned the IPR disclosures, to provide a last opportunity for implementers to express any concerns over the IPR situation. No objections were raised regarding IPR. (9) 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? A WGLC was given on the -02 version on 15 Dec 2009. It received no responses. A final WGLC on the -12 version was given on 7 Feb 2012. It received no responses either. (10) 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 publicly available.) None. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None (on -12). (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. "Registration of application/mrb-publish+xml and application/mrb-consumer+xml" was sent to ietf-types on 19 Jan 2012. Two responses were received from one person. The comments were minor editorial matters which I [Dale] believe do not require changes to the draft. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? None. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. None. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. None. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Confirmed. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. There are new IANA registrations, but no new IANA registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. One author (Lorenzo Miniero) checked the schemas using Eclipse and XML Spy, and validated the examples using a JAXB-based tool.
- [MEDIACTRL] Draft MRB -13 Shepherd Writeup Eric Burger