Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging
draft-ietf-stox-im-13
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-06-02
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-05-28
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from EDIT |
2015-04-14
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-04-14
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-04-14
|
13 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-04-13
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2015-04-13
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-04-13
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-04-13
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-04-13
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-04-13
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-03-21
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-03-12
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2015-03-05
|
13 | Peter Saint-Andre | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-03-05
|
13 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-13.txt |
2015-03-05
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-03-05
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-03-05
|
12 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2015-03-05
|
12 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-03-05
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-03-04
|
12 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-03-04
|
12 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that. I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please remember I … [Ballot comment] I'm glad to see these specifications moving forward. Thanks for that. I have a couple of you-need-smarter-ADs questions. As prologue, please remember I have a decent understanding of SIP, an indecent understanding of SIMPLE, and mostly, I just stare uncomprehendingly when I see raw XMPP. It did not jump out at me when reading this specification, whether there is any assurance to a sender on one side of the gateway that a message was delivered successfully to a receiver on the other side of the gateway. If there's not, that might be worth pointing out a bit earlier than a Note: halfway through page 5. Is there a possible mismatch between what a sender thinks is happening, TLS-wise, on one side of the gateway, and what a receiver actually receives, TLS-wise, on the other side? I'm not smart enough to ask the right question, but if an XMPP sender knows she's sending over TLS, but the XMPP-to-SIP gateway maps that into a non-TLS SIP transaction on the other side, is the kind of scenario I'm thinking of. If so, perhaps it's worth pointing that out someplace (the Security Considerations section would be fine). |
2015-03-04
|
12 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-03-04
|
12 | Francis Dupont | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2015-03-04
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this series! |
2015-03-04
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-03-04
|
12 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2015-03-03
|
12 | Richard Barnes | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-03-03
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-03-03
|
12 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-03-03
|
12 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-03-03
|
12 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) - The reference to rfc 3923 isn't that useful is it? I mean because … [Ballot comment] - I'm surprised it's so easy to be honest;-) - The reference to rfc 3923 isn't that useful is it? I mean because nobody really does that afaik. If someone does do it (I could imagine an enterprise scale thing working), then maybe better to say that while it'd work, it's really uncommon, or some such. |
2015-03-03
|
12 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-03-03
|
12 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2015-03-02
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] -- Section 4 -- stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant … [Ballot comment] -- Section 4 -- stanza, including required and optional elements and attributes, is defined in [RFC6121] (for single instant messages, the value of the 'to' address SHOULD be a "bare JID" of the form "localpart@domainpart", as per [RFC6121]). I gather that this is adding a new SHOULD that isn't in 6121; you should probably make that clear, because this looks to me as a restatement of something from 6121. -- Section 8 -- Other sections talk about how you MUST map this into that. This section say, basically, "Both XMPP and SIP support language tagging," but does not say anything about whether you MAY, SHOULD, or MUST map the language tagging from one into the other. Is that intentional? My sense (and I just asked Joe, who agrees) is that this ought to say that you SHOULD map between SIP and XMPP language tagging. |
2015-03-02
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-03-02
|
12 | Richard Barnes | Ballot has been issued |
2015-03-02
|
12 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2015-03-02
|
12 | Richard Barnes | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-03-02
|
12 | Richard Barnes | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-03-02
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2015-03-02
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2015-03-02
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-02-26
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-02-26
|
12 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-stox-im-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-stox-im-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-02-17
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand |
2015-02-17
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand |
2015-02-16
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-02-16
|
12 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Interworking between the Session Initiation … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the SIP-TO-XMPP WG (stox) to consider the following document: - 'Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-03-02. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of single instant messages between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-im/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-02-16
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-02-16
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-02-15
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2015-02-15
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2015-02-15
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2015-02-15
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-02-15
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-02-15
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-02-15
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-02-15
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-03-05 |
2015-02-13
|
12 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-12.txt |
2015-02-02
|
11 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-11.txt |
2015-01-29
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-01-26
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. ======================================================== PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-im-10 To be Published as: Proposed Standard Prepared by: Yana Stamcheva (yana@jitsi.org) (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? This document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard. (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 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. This document defines a bi-directional protocol mapping for the exchange of single instant messages between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). 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? This document has been initially reviewed in the DISPATCH WG as per the RAI area process for new work. The STOX WG has been chartered as a result of the submission of this and other documents that aim to define specifications for interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) based systems. This document has been subjected to a number of thorough reviews initially in the DISPATCH WG and in the STOX WG after its creation. All comments and suggestions of the reviewers have been taken into account in the document subsequent updates. The document is short and focused on one specific mapping definition and there were no controversial points regarding it. 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? There are already several vendors having full or partial implementations of the specification, among which Jabber/Cisco, Kamailio (OpenSER), AG Projects (Silk Server). Some of the people behind these implementations have actively participated in the discussions in the WG. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Yana Stamcheva is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Alissa Cooper. (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 has reviewed this version of the document and thinks it is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document has been out for a few years and was subjected to thorough reviews. All reviewers' comments have been addressed. (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. No. (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. I have no such concerns. (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. Yes. (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 disclosure that references this document has been filed. (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? The WGLC has revealed a solid consensus among the active members of the STOX WG for this document going forward to publishing. There were no objections. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (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. The document was checked using idnits 2.13.00. There is a warning about the date which is innocuous, as well as a warning about an outdated reference to an earlier version of a draft. All will naturally be addressed by the RFC Editor. There's also one warning about a possible down-reference for a document defined by the XMPP Standards Foundation. This warning was checked by the document shepherd and confirmed that this is the latest version of the referenced document. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews other than review in the STOX WG are required for this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, all references in the document exist either in the normative or the informative sections. (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? No. (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. (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. No. (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). This document requests no actions of IANA. (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. None. (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 document contains a few XML code examples, which have been mechanically verified. |
2015-01-26
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. ======================================================== PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-im-10 To be Published as: Proposed Standard Prepared by: Yana Stamcheva (yana@jitsi.org) (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? This document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard. (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 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. This document defines a bi-directional protocol mapping for the exchange of single instant messages between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). 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? This document has been initially reviewed in the DISPATCH WG as per the RAI area process for new work. The STOX WG has been chartered as a result of the submission of this and other documents that aim to define specifications for interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) based systems. This document has been subjected to a number of thorough reviews initially in the DISPATCH WG and in the STOX WG after its creation. All comments and suggestions of the reviewers have been taken into account in the document subsequent updates. The document is short and focused on one specific mapping definition and there were no controversial points regarding it. 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? There are already several vendors having full or partial implementations of the specification, among which Jabber/Cisco, Kamailio (OpenSER), AG Projects (Silk Server). Some of the people behind these implementations have actively participated in the discussions in the WG. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Yana Stamcheva is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Alissa Cooper. (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 has reviewed this version of the document and thinks it is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document has been out for a few years and was subjected to thorough reviews. All reviewers' comments have been addressed. (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. No. (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. I have no such concerns. (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. Yes. (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 disclosure that references this document has been filed. (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? The WGLC has revealed a solid consensus among the active members of the STOX WG for this document going forward to publishing. There were no objections. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (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. The document was checked using idnits 2.13.00. There is a warning about the date which is innocuous, as well as a warning about an outdated reference to an earlier version of a draft. All will naturally be addressed by the RFC Editor. There's also one warning about a possible down-reference for a document defined by the XMPP Standards Foundation. This warning was checked by the document shepherd and confirmed that this is the latest version of the referenced document. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews other than review in the STOX WG are required for this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, all references in the document exist either in the normative or the informative sections. (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? No. (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. (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. No. (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). This document requests no actions of IANA. (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. None. (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 document contains a few XML code examples, which have been mechanically verified. |
2015-01-22
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. ======================================================== PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-im-10 To be Published as: Proposed Standard Prepared by: Yana Stamcheva (yana@jitsi.org) (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? This document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard. (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 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. This document defines a bi-directional protocol mapping for the exchange of single instant messages between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). 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? This document has been initially reviewed in the DISPATCH WG as per the RAI area process for new work. The STOX WG has been chartered as a result of the submission of this and other documents that aim to define specifications for interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) based systems. This document has been subjected to a number of thorough reviews initially in the DISPATCH WG and in the STOX WG after its creation. All comments and suggestions of the reviewers have been taken into account in the document subsequent updates. The document is short and focused on one specific mapping definition and there were no controversial points regarding it. 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? There are already several vendors having full or partial implementations of the specification, among which Jabber/Cisco, Kamailio (OpenSER), AG Projects (Silk Server). Some of the people behind these implementations have actively participated in the discussions in the WG. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Yana Stamcheva is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Alissa Cooper. (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 has reviewed this version of the document and thinks it is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document has been out for a few years and was subjected to thorough reviews. All reviewers' comments have been addressed. (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. No. (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. I have no such concerns. (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. Yes. (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 disclosure that references this document has been filed. (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? The WGLC has revealed a solid consensus among the active members of the STOX WG for this document going forward to publishing. There were no objections. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (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. The document was checked using idnits 2.13.00. There is a warning about the date which is innocuous, as well as a warning about an outdated reference to an earlier version of a draft. All will naturally be addressed by the RFC Editor. There's also one warning about a possible down-reference for a document defined by the XMPP Standards Foundation. This warning was checked by the document shepherd and confirmed that this is the latest version of the referenced document. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews other than review in the STOX WG are required for this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, all references in the document exist either in the normative or the informative sections. (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? No. (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. (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. No. (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). This document requests no actions of IANA. (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. None. (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 document contains a few XML code examples, which have been mechanically verified. |
2015-01-22
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | State Change Notice email list changed to stox@ietf.org, stox-chairs@tools.ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, draft-ietf-stox-im.all@tools.ietf.org |
2015-01-22
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
2015-01-22
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-01-22
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-01-22
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-01-22
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-10-07
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2014-10-07
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | Changed document writeup |
2014-10-07
|
10 | Yana Stamcheva | Document shepherd changed to Yana Stamcheva |
2014-08-04
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-10.txt |
2014-06-10
|
09 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-09.txt |
2014-03-11
|
08 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-08.txt |
2014-01-23
|
07 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-07.txt |
2013-12-10
|
06 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-06.txt |
2013-10-18
|
05 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-05.txt |
2013-09-30
|
04 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-04.txt |
2013-09-06
|
03 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-03.txt |
2013-09-05
|
02 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-02.txt |
2013-08-20
|
01 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-01.txt |
2013-07-01
|
00 | Peter Saint-Andre | New version available: draft-ietf-stox-im-00.txt |