RE: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01.txt
"Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 16 January 2007 15:02 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6pph-0004tM-AK; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:02:41 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6ppf-0004t9-Sm for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:02:39 -0500
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com ([135.245.0.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6ppb-0005rY-0s for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:02:39 -0500
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id l0GEwDEB001985 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:02:34 -0600 (CST)
Received: from DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com ([135.248.187.66]) by ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:01:53 -0600
Received: from DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.28]) by DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:01:44 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01.txt
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:01:44 +0100
Message-ID: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE29180AEE95C@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1H41RS-0004vV-LD@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcczZtHdKAHZM8weSvWD3vWmU3oinAGGEhXw
From: "Drage, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: sip@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2007 15:01:44.0616 (UTC) FILETIME=[3CBF7A80:01C7397F]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 46ad68ada464411807db2a0edd5648ae
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
I have just submitted the request to IESG to publish this document as proposed standard. As a result the document will now go through IESG review. The required PROTO writeup follows at the end of this mail Regards Keith Keith Drage drage@alcatel-lucent.com tel: +44 1793 776249 PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-uri- list-message-01.txt: "Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)" (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? Keith Drage The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG 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? Document history: * draft-camarillo-sipping-exploders-solution-00 was submitted November 22nd 2003 and expired May 22nd 2004. * draft-camarillo-sipping-exploders-00 was submitted September 9th 2003 and expired March 9th 2004. * draft-camarillo-sipping-exploders-02 was submitted February 6th 2004 and expired August 6th 2004. * draft-camarillo-sipping-exploders-03 was submitted February 2004 and expired August 1st 2004. * draft-camarillo-sipping-uri-list-01 was submitted 6th February 2004 and expired 6th August 2004. * draft-camarillo-uri-list-02 was submitted 27th March 2004 and expired 25th September 2004. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-00 was submitted 30th May 2004 and expired 30th November 2004. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-00 was submitted 7th July 2004 and expired 5th January 2005. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-01 was submitted 14th October 2004 and expired 14th April 2005. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-02 was submitted 2nd December 2004 and expired 2nd June 2005. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-03 was submitted 15th April 2005 and expired 15th October 2005. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-04 was submitted 24th October 2005 and expired 24th April 2006. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-05 was submitted 18th January 2006 and expired 18th July 2006. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-06 was submitted 31st January 2006 and expired 30th July 2006. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-07 was submitted 27th February 2006 and expired 27th August 2006. * draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-08 was submitted 5th September 2006 and expired 5th March 2007. * draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-00 was submitted 24th September 2006 and expires 24th March 2007. * draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01 was submitted 8th January 2007 and expires 8th July 2007. WGLC was initiated in the SIPPING WG on draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message- 02 on 12th January 2005 with comments requested by 12th February 2005. Review was made and no comments were received. During the course of the work comments have also been made by: Paul Kyzivat, Dean Willis, Jari Urpalainen. draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-message-07 was extended to refer to draft-ietf- sipping-capacity-attribute. The document was moved from the SIPPING WG to the SIP WG in conformance with RFC 3427 because it defines an option tag (this was added at a late stage in the review process). The document was regarded by the SIPPING WG chairs as being adequately reviewed and no further review took place in the SIP WG. The SIP mailing list was polled on this status and no complaint was made. (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? The document defines mechanisms that are entirely internal to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). The document shepherd considers that no external review from an external specialist is necessary. (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. The document defines a new SIP protocol extension for a particular purpose in a form that has been used for many other extensions. The document shepherd has no concerns with the document. (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? There is a strong requirement from OMA for a SIP solution in this area. The document also forms part of 3GPP Release 6 content. (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 indicated. (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? The document has been reviewed against the guidelines in RFC 4485 and it is believed that the document is conformant with those guidelines. While the document defines a new SIP option tag, these have been performed as a SIP working group item, and therefore this draft is in conformance with RFC 3427. For ID-NITS the document has been checked against idnits 1.123 and no issues have been found. (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 document has split its references into normative and informative references. All the normative references are now published RFCs except as follows: * reference [10] draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05 is in IESG review as proposed standard. * reference [11] draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-06 has been submitted to the IESG by the SIPPING group as proposed standard. * reference [12] draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-03 is currently in WGLC in the SIPPING group. It should be noted that reference [7] is a normative reference despite being an informational RFC. It is believed that this meets the criteria of RFC 3967. The document needs no informative references. (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? Section 11 of the document registers a new option-tag; the new option-tag is defined elsewhere in the document. This registration is consistent with RFC 3968 which defines the registry and is also consistent with the current format of the registry. (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? The document contains no entries written in formal language. While the document makes use of XML within a SIP message body, that XML is defined by other documents (RFC 4488, draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05), and used in this specification by reference. Figure 2, and figure 3 contain an example of this XML usage which is apparently well-formed. (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 specifies a mechanism that allows a SIP User Agent Client (UAC) to request a SIP URI-list (Uniform Resource Identifier list) service to send a SIP MESSAGE request to a set of destinations. The client sends a SIP MESSAGE request that includes the payload along with the URI-list to the MESSAGE URI-list service, which sends a similar MESSAGE request to each of the URIs included in the list. Working Group Summary The document was originally produced by the SIPPING working group, but was transferred to the SIP working group due to the need to define a new option tag, in conformance with RFC 3427. There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. Document Quality There is a strong requirement from OMA and 3GPP for a SIP solution in this area. Personnel Keith Drage is the document shepherd for this document. Cullen Jennings is the responsible Area Director. > -----Original Message----- > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: 08 January 2007 20:50 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: sip@ietf.org > Subject: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests > in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) > Author(s) : M. Garcia-Martin, G. Camarillo > Filename : draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2007-1-8 > > This document specifies a mechanism that allows a SIP User Agent > Client (UAC) to request a SIP URI-list (Uniform Resource Identifier > list) service to send a SIP MESSAGE request to a set of > destinations. > The client sends a SIP MESSAGE request that includes the payload > along with the URI-list to the MESSAGE URI-list service, > which sends > a similar MESSAGE request to each of the URIs included in the list. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-me ssage-01.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a > message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word > unsubscribe in the body of the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login > with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail > address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant > mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail > reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII > version of the Internet-Draft. > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
- [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-… Internet-Drafts
- Re: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-mess… Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-mess… Miguel Garcia
- RE: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-mess… Drage, Keith (Keith)