[MEDIACTRL] Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-12.
"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Mon, 27 February 2012 21:45 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0065521E801A for <email@example.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:45:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([22.214.171.124]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gtCqS6axspps for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [126.96.36.199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE1821E800C for <email@example.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:45:55 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,493,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="293676800"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([188.8.131.52]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2012 16:45:53 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com) ([184.108.40.206]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2012 16:38:51 -0500
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.2.202]) by DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com ([220.127.116.11]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:45:52 -0500
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:45:05 -0500
Thread-Topic: Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-12.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-12.
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <mediactrl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mediactrl>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:45:58 -0000
This version [of the document writeup form] is dated September 17, 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? The document shepherd is Dale Worley (a co-chair of Mediactrl). In my opinion, the revision -12 is ready for publication. (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? I believe the document has had adequate review. People in the WG and representatives of major application server and media server vendors have contributed to and reviewed this document in meetings, mailing lists and extra MediaCtrl sessions. At least one vendor has built an MRB to this specification. (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? I 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 I am sure that they have found the various alternatives in the protocol are necessary in various practical situations. (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. I have no such concerns. Specifically regarding IPR: 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 solilcitation and no further discussion of the IPR issues on any IETF mailing list, suggesting that no controversy ensued. I would expect that any implementors 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 implementors to express any concerns over the IPR situation. No objections were raised regarding IPR. (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? 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. (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.) None that I can find any record of. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 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? "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 believe do not require change to the draft. (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 -- the nits tool (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) is happy with the draft. (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 [RFC5226]. 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. (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? Yes. One author (Lorenzo Miniero) checked the schemas using Eclipse and XML Spy, and validated the examples using a JAXB-based tool. (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 The MediaCtrl work group in the IETF has proposed an architecture for controlling media services. The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is used as the signalling protocol which provides many inherent capabilities for message routing. A need exists for intelligent, application level media service selection based on non-static signalling 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 implemention experience dictated a number of small improvements to the protocol and its description. Document Quality The protocol described in this document has been implemented by several major vendors. The description has also been carefully reviewed by someone not involved in its writing or implementation. Personnel Dale Worley is the document's shepherd. Robert Sparks is the responsible AD.
- [MEDIACTRL] Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-i… Worley, Dale R (Dale)