[Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12
"DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 22 October 2008 22:32 UTC
Return-Path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sip-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A2C3A698F; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973D63A698F for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.713
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.713 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3be-XID51VIT for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDECA3A68ED for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m9MMXabs017341 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:33:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com ([135.248.187.66]) by ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:33:36 -0500
Received: from DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.30]) by DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:33:33 +0200
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:33:06 +0200
Message-ID: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918002425AE1@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12
Thread-Index: Ack0lic6as8akCdkQWGpr/INxJrKOw==
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: SIP IETF <sip@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2008 22:33:33.0951 (UTC) FILETIME=[379C78F0:01C93496]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
Subject: [Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
(As WG cochair) A new version of this document has just been issued, which makes no technical change but does tidy up some editorial issues that I discovered while doing the publication request. I intend to submit the publication request in 24 hours time with the following PROTO writeup unless any further issues are discovered. If anyone has any further implementation experience they would like to share in particular, that would be useful information. I am also currently preparing domain-certs, eku and session policy. Information on implementation experience would be useful on those documents. Regards Keith ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12: "Connection Reuse 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. Document history: - draft-mahy-sip-connect-reuse-00 was submitted 1st June 2003 and expired 30th November 2003. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-00 was submitted 1st August 2003 and expired 30th January 2004. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-01 was submitted 1st February 2004 and expired 1st August 2004. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-02 was submitted 17th July 2004 and expired 15th January 2005. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-03 was submitted 22nd October 2004 and expired 22nd April 2005. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-04 was submitted 14th July 2005 and expired 15th January 2006. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-05 was submitted 5th February 2006 and expired 5th August 2006. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-06 was submitted 21st August 2006 and expired 22nd February 2007. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-07 was submitted 6th October 2006 and expired 9th April 2007. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-08 was submitted 16th October 2007 and expired 18th April 2008. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-09 was submitted 8th February 2008 and expires 11th August 2008. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-10 was submitted 13th May 2008 and expires 14th November 2008. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-11 was submitted 14th July 2008 and expires 15th January 2009. - draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12 was submitted 22nd October 2008 and expires 25th April 2009. There was a requirements phase of the work that was covered in: - draft-mahy-sipping-connect-reuse-reqs-00 was submitted 19th June 2002 and expired 18th December 2002. - draft-ietf-sipping-connect-reuse-reqs-00 was submitted 1st October 2002 and expired 1st April 2003. These requirements were handed over to SIP without being published by SIPPING. The requirements also formed the basis for progressing draft-ietf-sip-outbound, the scope of which is separate from this document. WGLC announced in the SIP WG on 26th October 2005 to complete 18th November 2005 on -04 version. WGLC continuation announced 23rd October 2007 to complete 6th November 2007 on -08 version. Extended until 24th November 2007. Review was made and comments were received from: Dale Worley, Hadriel Kaplan, Jerry Yin. Paul Kyzivat participated in the discussion on the resolution of these comments. Earlier reviews were made by Paul Kyzivat, Jonathan Rosenberg, Cullen Jennings, Benny Prijono, Matthew Gardiner. (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? The document has had adequate review from working group members. The main issue with the extended timescale of this document has been separating the scope from that of outbound, and identifying whether there was still a sufficient use case for continuing with this document. While the community of use is small compared to outbound, it is still significant and it was therefore agreed to proceed with the draft. (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. The document has not had a separate security review, and that should therefore 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? As already indicated, there are two solutions in this area fulfilling two different use cases. draft-ietf-sip-outbound covers the majority of these use cases, with a more limited community of support of the remaining use cases covered by this draft. However a poll of the SIP WG showed that there was still a significant community of interest to justify proceeding with the document. (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 Via header field parameter, this has been performed as a SIP working group item, and therefore this draft is in conformance with RFC 3968. For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.09.01 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 value that requires registration: * alias header field parameter to the Via header field. Section 12 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 one items in ABNF in section 7. These augment the ABNF defined in RFC 3261. The contents of this ABNF is have been checked in conjunction with the ABNF defined in RFC 3261 by use of the checker defined in http://www.apps.ietf.org/abnf.html and no faults have been found. (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. This document enables a pair of communicating proxies to reuse a congestion-controlled connection between themselves for sending requests in the forward and backwards direction. Because the connection is essentially aliased for requests going in the backwards direction, reuse should be predicated upon both the communicating endpoints authenticating themselves using X.509 certificates through TLS. For this reason, we only consider connection reuse for TLS over TCP and TLS over SCTP. A single connection should not be reused for the TCP or SCTP transport between two peers, and this document provides insight into why this is the case. As a remedy, it suggests using two TCP connections (or two SCTP associations), each opened pro-actively towards the recipient by the sender. Finally, this document also provides guidelines on connection reuse and virtual SIP servers and the interaction of connection reuse and DNS SRV lookups in SIP. Working group summary. There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. Document Quality At SIPiT 18 there were recorded 6 implementations of connect-reuse. At SIPiT 19 there were recorded 27 implementations of connect-reuse (30% of 90 implementations). This was the last SIPiT apparently polled for numbers of implementations of this extension. 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://www.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] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-conn… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)