[Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-answermode
"DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 13 June 2007 10:39 UTC
Return-path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HyQFv-0000H7-Kb; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:39:15 -0400
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HyQFt-0000Gy-L9 for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:39:13 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HyQFt-0000Gk-B1 for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:39:13 -0400
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([135.245.0.33]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HyQFs-0003n1-Mk for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:39:13 -0400
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id l5DAcll4007239 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:39:12 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DEEXP01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.65]) by ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:39:04 -0500
Received: from DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.27]) by DEEXP01.de.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:39:01 +0200
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
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:39:01 +0200
Message-ID: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE29180012C9556@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-answermode
Thread-Index: Acetpw4CnOQ+4mApSiW6oUtAdANdKA==
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: IETF SIP List <sip@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2007 10:39:01.0527 (UTC) FILETIME=[0E59FA70:01C7ADA7]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9e5c23589e6cce06555030c0194c9e2b
Subject: [Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-answermode
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
(As WG chair) I have just requested publication of: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-answermode-04.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- answermode-04.txt: "Requesting Answering Modes for 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-allen-sipping-poc-p-headers-00 created November 2004, expired May 2005. - draft-allen-sipping-poc-p-headers-01.txt created February 7th 2005, expired August 8th 2005 (split into two drafts, the one below and a separate P-header draft which remained in SIPPING). - draft-willis-sip-answeralert-00 created June 14th 2005, expired December 16th 2005. Discussed at IETF#63. - draft-willis-sip-answeralert-01 created August 31st 2005, expired March 4th 2006. Discussed at IETF#64. - draft-ietf-sip-answermode-00 created December 14th 2005, expired June 17th 2006. - draft-ietf-sip-answermode-01 created April 3rd 2006, expired October 3rd 2006. - draft-ietf-sip-answermode-02 created March 4th 2007, expires September 5th 2007. - draft-ietf-sip-answermode-03 created May 10th 2007, expires November 11th 2007. - draft-ietf-sip-answermode-04 created June 12th 2007, expires December 14th 2007. WGLC was initiated on draft-ietf-sip-answermode-00 on 23rd February 2006 with comments requested by 15th March 2006. Reviews were conducted by and comments received from Hans Persson, Jeroen van Bemmel, and Paul Kyzivat. At least 5 other people commented on earlier versions of the document. (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. 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? 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. However uses in the SIP WG were found for a more general mechanism. Less generic parts of the original proposal form the basis of a separate draft draft-allen-sipping-poc-p-answer-state-header-04 being progressed under the rules of RFC 3427 as a P-header. (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? 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 new SIP headers and 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 (idnits 2.04.09) the checks report no errors. (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. There are no downward references. (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? Section 8 of the document contains the IANA considerations. Section 8.1 of the document registers the two new SIP header fields that are 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. Section 8.2 of the document registers two new header field parameters for the new Answer-Mode header field, and which are defined elsewhere in the document. Section 8.2 of the document also registers the same two new header field parameters for the new Priv-Answer-Mode header field, and again these are 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. Section 8.3 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. It has been checked that there are no other protocol elements requiring registration. (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? Section 3 of the document specifies the new headers in ABNF. This ABNF passes the checks in http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/abnf.cgi. (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 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 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 defines extends SIP with two header fields and associated option tags that can be used in INVITE requests to convey the requester's preference for user-interface handling related to answering of that request. The first header, "Answer-Mode", expresses a preference as to whether the target node's user interface waits for user input before accepting the request or instead accepts the request without waiting on user input. The second header, "Priv-Answer-Mode" is similar to the first, except that it requests administrative-level access and has consequent additional authentication and authorization requirements. These behaviors have applicability to applications such as Push-to-Talk and to diagnostics like loop-back. Usage of each header field in a response to indicate how the request was handled is also defined. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. The proposal was originally submitted as a P-header, but it was decided that this aspect should be brought out and made generally applicable to all SIP implementations. Early concerns about the possibility to use the header as a means of eavesdropping have been addressed in the security considerations. Document Quality There has been no indication of implementation. The document has been required in support of the OMA PoC feature, and it can be assumed that there have been implementations of the OMA work that have therefore used this feature. 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 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-answ… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)