[salud] Draft of the Proto Writeup
worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 19 February 2014 22:26 UTC
Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4944F1A0226 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:26:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wt06AbJFHJHj for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls6.std.com [192.74.137.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAAA71A02C1 for <salud@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:26:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (svani@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1JMPVUv010341; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:25:33 -0500
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s1JMPQEH5352016; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:25:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id s1JMPPp35352008; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:25:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:25:25 -0500
Message-Id: <201402192225.s1JMPPp35352008@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: salud@ietf.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/oSxHSn_4TlnlriDO2-fJ1wMWtCE
Subject: [salud] Draft of the Proto Writeup
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:26:11 -0000
[as an individual] Writing the draft of the Proto Writeup, I have found some items that should be addressed: Have any telecom vendors expressed interest in implementing this document? I expect DT is interested, because two of their people have been involved from the beginning. It would help if we knew that more vendors were interested, so we could list them in the Proto Writeup. RFCs 1123 and 5031 are listed as references, but they aren't referenced in the text. I assume that the references should simply be deleted. Because we are including text from RFC 3261, which predates the latest IETF Trust arrangements, we may need to update the boilerplate. The simplest update (as far as I can tell) is to change the <rfc> XML element to specify a "pre-5378 disclaimer". I think the syntax is: <rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-11" updates="3261" ipr="pre5378Trust200902"> A longer discussion of this issue is: -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) (Section 4.2 of this document largely repeats three sentences of section 20.4 of RFC 3261. There are two possibilities: Either all eight of the authors have granted these rights, in which case boilerplate "trust200902" can continue to be used, or else we can use boilerplate "pre5378Trust200902". I know of no place where we can determine whether these rights have been granted, so we should edit the <rfc> element of the XML to read: I suspect the simplest way to handle the changes to the references and to the boilerplate is to put them in a -12 version, but perhaps we can leave them as changes to be inserted by the RFC Editor. Do people have any comments on these? The full text of my draft of the Proto Writeup follows. All of the places where Christer needs to add his opinions are identified with "Christer". Dale ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Document: URNs for the Alert-Info Header Field of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-11 (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. The relevant parts of the definition of "Proposed Standard", given in RFC 2026 and reiterated in RFC 6410, are: A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard designation. A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with respect to the requirements placed upon it. The working group believes that all known design issues have been resolved, and that the design satisfies all of the stated requirements (listed in section 5), as well as the standards for SIP and for URN namespaces. This document also updates RFC 3261 by permitting the Alert-Info header to appear in all non-100 provisional SIP responses. A number of telecommunication equipment vendors have expressed interest in implementing this document. [Christer: Check that. At least DT seems to be interested.] One particular URN <urn:alert:service:normal> that is defined in this document is referenced in draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-15, which is in the RFC Editor queue (and is itself Standards Track). The "Standards Track" status is indicated on the title page header. (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. The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) supports the capability to provide a reference to a specific rendering to be used by the UA when the user is alerted. This is done using the Alert-Info header field. However, providing a reference (typically a URL) addresses only a specific network resource with specific rendering properties. This document defines a new namespace of URNs for use in Alert-Info header fields. The URNs are defined to describe characteristics of the incoming call, characteristics of how the call is being handled at the callee, and rendering characteristics of the desired signal. The URNs can be combined to provide complex descriptions of the intended signal. Provisions are made for private extensions that can describe additional signal characteristics and additional subcategorization of standardized characteristics. Detailed resolution rules are provided to ensure that a renderer provides the best representation that it can of the signaler's intention. 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? There is solid consensus in the SALUD WG of the value of this work and the usefulness of this document. A large set of requirements has been identified to ensure that the proposed URNs can be used successfully in converting existing telephone switches to operate using SIP. 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? A number of telecommunication equipment vendors have expressed interest in implementing this document. [Christer: Check that. At least DT seems to be interested.] An important review of the proposed URN namespace was done by Alfred Hoenes, which identified a number of deficiencies in the original proposal (which have been eliminated). After revision, the URN namespace definition was presented on the urn-nid mailing list, and no objections were raised. Many reviews have been done by the authors, and a final review by the Document Shepherd, which convince the WG that there are no substantive issues remaining. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? The Document Shepherd is Christer Holmberg. The Responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo (who may be replaced by Richard Barnes at the end of Gonzalo's term as 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. [This is Christer's contribution. [Here is the text I used when I reviewed one of the Mediactrl drafts: [The Document Shepherd (Dale Worley) reviewed the document. The Shepherd identified a number of possible improvements to the document, including: adding definitions to the glossary for the benefit of people not familiar with the Media Control effort, discussing the additional configuration needs to obtain benefit from "IUMM mode" operation, removing from the examples the draft-boulton-mmusic-sdp-control-package-attribute extension (which was used in the implementation but has not progressed to standardization), and clarifying definition of the "gain" parameter. All of these issues were completely resolved.] (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? [This is Christer's contribution. [Here is the text I used when I reviewed one of the Mediactrl drafts: [The Document Shepherd is satisfied with the review; the document should be easily comprehensible to a first-time reader of the relevant RFCs, and useful to any implementer of the RFCs.] (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. As this document defines a new URN namespace, that namespace definition must be reviewed. Early in the process, Alfred Hoenes provided invaluable feedback that allowed a number of important issues to be corrected. The current version of the namespace definition was presented to the urn-nid mailing list, and no objections were made. Internationalization considerations are listed in section 15. Since these URNs are not directly visible to users, internationalization requirements are relatively modest. The most important consideration is that a part of the private-extension syntax includes representation of the domain name of the private party defining the extension, so the private-extension syntax must allow internationalized domain names. This is provided straightforwardly by allowing A-labels (per RFC 5890) (that is, the "xn--..." form output by Punycode) to appear as a "domain name" part of a URN. Since this mechanism refers to the standardized handling of internationalized domain names, no special review was given to it. In addition, the URN system provides a way for a user agent to specify that a ring tone or ringback tone be used that is customary in a specific country. (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. [This is Christer's contribution. [Here is the text I used when I reviewed one of the Mediactrl drafts: [The Document Shepherd has no concerns regarding technical content. The English usage may need some cleaning up, as all the authors are non-native English speakers, but the Shepherd believes those needs are within the capabilities of the RFC Editor.] (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, all five authors have confirmed compliance with BCPs 78 and 79. The confirmations are archived on the Salud WG mailing list. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. As of 19 Feb 2014, none have been filed referencing this document. (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? There is solid consensus in the SALUD WG of the value of this work and this specific document. (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.) [This is Christer's contribution. [Here is the text I used when I reviewed one of the Mediactrl drafts: [None that the chairs or Shepherd are aware of.] (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. The significant warnings found by the ID-Nits tool 2.13.00 are: Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3261, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC3261 though, so this could be OK. (This warning is incorrect, as the Abstract says "This document normatively updates RFC 3261 ...".) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Using the creation date from RFC3261, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2002-02-21) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) (Section 4.2 of this document largely repeats three sentences of section 20.4 of RFC 3261. There are two possibilities: Either all eight of the authors have granted these rights, in which case boilerplate "trust200902" can continue to be used, or else we can use boilerplate "pre5378Trust200902". I know of no place where we can determine whether these rights have been granted, so we should edit the <rfc> element of the XML to read: <rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-11" updates="3261" ipr="pre5378Trust200902"> ) Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 1071, but not defined (All instances of 'RFCXXXX' are to be replaced with the RFC number of this document.) == Unused Reference: 'RFC1123' is defined on line 1854, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Applicatio...' (This reference should be deleted, as it is not used.) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5031' is defined on line 1923, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Emerg...' (This reference should be deleted, as it is not used.) (There is an informative reference to draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances. We expect the RFC Editor to replace the draft name with its RFC number. draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances is being held in the RFC Editor queue solely because it references this document; the two documents form a cluster.) (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. An important review of the proposed URN namespace was done by Alfred Hoenes, which identified a number of deficiencies in the original proposal (which have been eliminated). After revision, the URN namespace definition was presented on the urn-nid mailing list, and no objections were raised. (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? All normative references are RFCs. (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. No. (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. This document normatively updates RFC 3261. RFC 3261 is listed on the title page header, and the update is outlined in the Abstract. The specifics of the update are provided in section 4. (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). [This is Christer's contribution. All of the IANA considerations are in section 9.] (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. None of the new IANA registries specified by this document use Expert Review for future allocations. (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. The only section of the document that could be checked by automation is the ABNF in section 7. The ABNF was processed with the IETF ABNF validator (http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/chris-newmans-abnf-validator), which found no problems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [EOF]
- [salud] Draft of the Proto Writeup Dale R. Worley