PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-spp-protocol-over-soap
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?
The request is to publish this document as a “Proposed Standard”. This
document specifies a SOAP (over HTTPS) transport protocol for the
Session Peering Provisioning Framework (SPPF; draft-ietf-drinks-spp-
framework). Given that SPPF is a Proposed Standard, and requires a
transport protocol for implementation, such as the one specified in
this document, the WG is in strong consensus that this is the proper
type of RFC.
And yes, this type is indicated in the title page header.
(2) 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:
This document provides a SOAP (over HTTPS) transport protocol for
implementing the Session Peering Provisioning Framework (SPPF; draft
-ietf-drinks-spp-framework). SPPF specifies the data model and the
overall structure to provision session establishment data into Session
Data Registries and SIP Service Provider data stores.
Working Group Summary:
The chairs believe that there is consensus behind this document. There
has not been any disagreement on the content of this I-D . Some
participants of the working group (and external observers) have
periodically expressed concern over the use of SOAP and questioned why
RESTful web service is not being used. The Working Group has discussed
this on multiple occasions and the act that more provisioning systems
that are meant to employ SPPF already use SOAP, it is the one that is
currently in demand for practical use. It is important to note that
SPPF is limited to identifying the data model specification. Should
the need arise for a RESTful service based transport protocol
specification , or even a binary protocol for various reasons, it can
be derived from the SPPF in the future. Therefore , the WG Chairs
believe that this has resulted in general consensus to progress this
document for consideration as an RFC.
Document Quality:
A few working group participants have developed a prototype-level
implementation, involving programmers who were not involved in the
framework or transport protocol design efforts. Lessons learned from
that implementation were fed back into the documents. Furthermore, the
SPPF design team includes several potential implementers, who have
verified the I-D content as ready for implementation.
Personnel:
Syed W. Ali is serving the role of Document Shepherd, and Richard
Barnes is the responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd . If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.
The document shepherd performed a review prior to publication request,
and believes that it is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
While there are no concerns regarding the contents or the
requirements, the document shepherd recommends that data modeling
experts, esp., those well versed in SOAP and WSDL be invited to review
this document. The primary reason for this is that previous “SOAP and
WSDL” expert reviewers were involved in the creation of this document,
but may have overlooked nuances. The secondary reason is that, while
we had non-WG member reviews, they were not necessarily SOAP experts.
(Data Model experts were invited, but were unable to make time during
the WGLC process.)
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.
Yes; see response to (4).
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.
No, all my concerns (e.g., IANA registry for namespaces) that were
raised have been addressed.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Each author has confirmed that there are no IPR claims about the
contents in this draft, and that they are not aware of such claims.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR claims have been filed, that the Document Shepherd is aware of.
(9) 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?
Within the Design Team, solid consensus was sought for each issue, and
minutes from the weekly conference calls were sent back to the WG
mailing list. Given the small size of the WG (~35 participants during
the last meeting) , most active participants (~8) were also part of
the Design Team, making for fewer discussions outside of the calls.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or other wise 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 publicly available.)
No appeal was threatened, nor did anybody indicate extreme discontent.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
There is one warning: Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative
reference: ref. 'SOAPREF'; which is acceptable.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The previous document shepherd (Sumanth Channabasappa) has asked for
specific XML expert review (from Peter Saint-Andre), but this may be
done as part of IETF LC.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes, references have been split in normative an informative
references.
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
This document depends on the SPPF document, which will need to
accepted prior-to, or at the same time.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last
Call procedure.
No. However, see note under point (11).
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the WG considers it unnecessary.
This document will not change the status of any existing RFC.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The document uses URNs to describe XML Namespaces and XML Schemas, and
pursuant to RFC3688, requests registration of:
URN: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:sppf:soap:1
The document does not create any new IANA registries
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
n/a
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The authors have performed validation; additionally an automated NITS
review was performed. The previous document shepherd (Sumanth
Channabasappa) has requested review from an external expert (Peter St.
Andre) some time ago, but there has been no feedback regarding this
review yet.
Furthermore, Ning Zhang has volunteered to perform a review, providing
feedback during the IETF LC.