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

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

And before anyone else responds on the first bit of the message below,
it should be: 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-02.
txt

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 12:01 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Publication request for 
> draft-ietf-sip-consent-framework-02.txt
> 
> (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