FW: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-subscribe-01.txt

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

I have just requested the IESG to publish this document as proposed
standard.

The PROTO writeup follows:

Regards

Keith



PROTO writeup for
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-uri-
list-subscribe-01.txt: "Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource 
Lists 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-subscribe-00 was submitted 30th June
2004 
and expired 30th November 2004.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-subscribe-01 was submitted 13th
October 
2004 and expired 13th April 2005.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-subscribe-02 was submitted 1st
November 
2004 and expired 1st June 2005.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-subscribe-03 was submitted 15th
April 2005 
and expired 15th October 2005.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-subscribe-04 was submitted 24th
October 
2005 and expired 24th April 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-subscribe-05 was submitted 11th
November 
2005 and expired 11th May 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-subscribe-00 was submitted 24th
September 2006 
and expires 24th March 2007.
*	draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-subscribe-01 was submitted 26th January
2007 
and expires 30th July 2007.

WGLC was initiated in the SIPPING WG on draft-ietf-sipping-uri-list-
subscribe-02 on 12th January 2005 with comments requested by 12th
February 
2005.

Review was made and comments were received from: Paul Kyzivat. During
the 
course of the work comments have also been made by: Cullen Jenning,
Avshalom 
Houri, Dale Worley, Darshan Bildikar.

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?

Section 1 of the document represents the background to the initiation of

this work, and details a strong requirement from OMA for a SIP solution
in 
this area.

   (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 checks against idnits 1.124 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 split its references into normative and informative 
references. All the normative references are now published RFCs except
as 
follows:
*	reference [5] draft-ietf-sipping-uri-services-06 has been
submitted to 
the IESG by the SIPPING group as proposed standard.
*	reference [6] draft-ietf-simple-xcap-list-usage-05 is in the RFC

editor's queue as proposed standard.

There are 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 9.1 changes the existing registration of the purpose header
field 
parameter to the Call-Info header field by the addition of a reference;
the 
reason for this is that a new value is added to the the existing
parameter. 
This registration is consistent with RFC 3968 which defines the registry
and 
is also consistent with the current format of the registry.

Section 9.2 of the document registers a new option-tag; the new
option-tag 
is defined elsewhere in the document. This registration is consistent
with 
RFC 3261 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 1 and figure 2 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 way to create subscription to a list of
resources 
in SIP.  This is achieved by including the list of resources in the body
of 
a SUBSCRIBE.  Instead of having a subscriber send a SUBSCRIBE for each 
resource individually, the subscriber defines the resource list,
subscribes 
to it, and gets notifications about changes in the resources' state
using a 
single SUBSCRIBE dialog.

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 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 26 January 2007 20:50
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [Sip] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-subscribe-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		: Subscriptions to Request-Contained Resource
Lists in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
	Author(s)	: G. Camarillo, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-subscribe-01.txt
	Pages		: 10
	Date		: 2007-1-26
	
This document specifies a way to create subscription to a list of
   resources in SIP.  This is achieved by including the list of
   resources in the body of a SUBSCRIBE request.  Instead of having a
   subscriber send a SUBSCRIBE request for each resource individually,
   the subscriber defines the resource list, subscribes to it, and gets
   notifications about changes in the resources' state using a single
   SUBSCRIBE dialog.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-subscribe-01
.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
[e-mail] 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-subscribe-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:
	[e-mail].
In the body type:
	"FILE
/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-subscribe-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 [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip