[Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-02.txt

["DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[e-mail]>]

(As WG chair)

I have just requested publication of:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-gruu-14.txt

The next stage for submitting comments is therefore the IESG last call.

The PROTO writeup submitted with the publication request is as follows.

Please feel free to respond if you consider any of the information
incorrect.

Regards

Keith


------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
PROTO writeup for
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-
02.txt: "A Framework for Consent-Based Communications 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-rosenberg-sipping-consent-framework-00 was submitted 8th
July 2004 and 
expired 6th January 2005.
-	draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-00 was submitted 18th
October 2004 and 
expired 18th April 2005.
-	draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-01 was submitted 20th
February 2005 and 
expired 21st August 2005.
-	draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-02 was submitted 18th July
2005 and expired 
19th January 2006.
-	draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-03 was submitted 5th
October 2005 and 
expired 8th April 2006.
-	draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-04 was submitted 25th
February 2006 and 
expired 29th August 2006.
-	draft-ietf-sipping-consent-framework-05 was submitted 12th June
2006 and expired 
14th December 2006.
-	draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-00 was submitted 17th September
2006 and expired 
21st March 2007.
-	draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-01 was submitted 26th November
2006 and expired 
30th May 2007.
-	draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-02 was submitted 5th July 2007
and expires 6th 
January 2007.

WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-00
on 25th September 
2006 with comments requested by 17th October 2006.

Review was made and comments were received from: Jeroen van Bemmel,
Shida Schubert, Ben 
Campbell, AC Mahendran, Mary Barnes. During the course of the work
comments have also 
been made by: Dean Willis, Andrew Allen, Cullen Jennings, Paul Kyzivat,
Adam Roach, 
Geoffrey Dawirs, Miguel Garcia.

The document was moved from the SIPPING WG to the SIP WG in conformance
with RFC 3427 
because it defines new header fields and a response code. Prior review
and discussion 
therefore took place in the SIPPING group.

Key discussions have taken place about which methods to use for various
parts of the 
consent framework.

The document is closely related with:

-	draft-ietf-sipping-consent-format-03;
-	draft-ietf-sipping-pending-additions-02;
-	draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-06;
-	draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-01;
-	draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-subscribe-01;
-	draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-conferencing-01;
-	draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-01.

Both OMA and 3GPP use the uri-list documents (as documented in their
PROTO writeups). As 
these documents have a mandatory normative dependence on the consent
framework, then 
they also need the consent framework.

   (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, apart from as follows.

While the document was generated as a result of a request from security
advisers 
concerning the original uri-list documents (see above), the document has
not had a 
separate security review, and that should there occur.

   (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.

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.

There have been no IPR disclosures on this 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?

While the document has been reviewed by appropriate SIP experts, the
level of readership 
of the SIP working group has apparently been low. This may lead one to
assume that the 
contents for this solution are correct, but potentially there could have
been other 
solutions out there that have been missed.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

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 response code, and two new SIP
header fields, these 
have been performed as a SIP working group item, and therefore this
draft is in 
conformance with RFC 3427.

For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.04.09 report no NITS 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 separate sections for normative and informative
references. The 
normative references have been checked and found to be normative.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document defines the following values that require registration:

*	Trigger-Consent header field
*	Permission-Missing header field
*	target-uri header field parameter to Trigger-Consent header
field
*	470 response code

Section 6 of the document provides the IANA considerations section, and
this defines the 
above.

   (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 defines two items in ABNF (Trigger-Consent and
Permission-Missing). These 
augment the ABNF defined in RFC 3261.

Both these items pass Bill Fenner's ABNF parser in the tools webpage.

   (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
             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 the 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 for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
             experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
             in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Technical summary.

The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) supports communications across
many media types, 
including real-time audio, video, text, instant messaging, and presence.
In its current 
form, it allows session invitations, instant messages, and other
requests to be 
delivered from one party to another without requiring explicit consent
of the recipient.  
Without such consent, it is possible for SIP to be used for malicious
purposes, 
including amplification, and DoS (Denial of Service) attacks.  This
document identifies 
a framework for consent-based communications in SIP.

Working group summary.

There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. The
document came 
about due to security area concerns about the need to protect against
denial of service 
attacks and amplification attacks when various relay and uri-list
mechanisms are used in 
SIP.

Document Quality

There has been no indication of implementation.

Personnel

The document shepherd for this document was Keith Drage. The responsible
Area Director 
was Cullen Jennings. 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this
document are <TO BE 
ADDED BY THE AD>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip