PROTO questionnaire for: draft-salgueiro-dispatch-websocket-sipclf-00
To be Published as: Proposed Standard
Prepared by: Vijay Gurbani (vkg@bell-labs.com) on 14 April 2014
(with help from Gonzalo Salgueiro)
(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 a Proposed Standard. This
is the proper type of RFC as it requires IANA registrations for a
registry that requires a standards track RFC. This RFC type is
indicated on the title page.
(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:
RFC 7118 specifies a WebSocket sub-protocol as a reliable real-time
transport mechanism between Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) entities
to enable usage of SIP in web-oriented deployments. This document
updates the SIP Common Log Format (CLF), defined in RFC 6873, with a new
"Transport Flag" for such SIP WebSocket transport.
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?
With the SIPCLF WG recently closed, this document was not contextually
relevant within any active WG charters. The narrow scope of the
document didn't warrant creation of a new WG, so RAI ADs and DISPATCH WG
chairs agreed that an AD sponsored individual draft was the proper
course of action.
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?
SIP CLF Transport Flag values must be registered via the IETF Review
method described in RFC5226. This document updates RFC 6873 by defining
a new SIP CLF "Transport Flag" value for WebSocket ('W').
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Vijay Gurbani is the Document Shepherd. 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 draft uses well established conventions of representing long lines for
RFC consumption. It adds a new Transport Flag type ('W') to the
existing registry for SIP CLF transport flags established by rfc6873.
The document shepherd reviewed the -00 version of the draft (please see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg05456.html). A
-01 version was released to attend to the review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.
(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.
There are no specific concerns or issues.
(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 disclosures filed by any of the authors of the draft.
(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?
Consensus represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent. No one has expressed concerns about its
progression.
(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 passes idnits 2.13.01.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
SIP CLF Transport Flag values must be registered via the IETF Review
method described in RFC5226. This document serves as the Standards Track
RFC to make this SIP CLF "Transport Flag" registration.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(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. The references are split between normative and informative; all the
normative references are to RFCs. None are downward references.
(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.
This document updates RFC 6873 and it is explicitly indicated in the
title page header and the Abstract.
(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).
(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.
The document shepherd has reviewed the IANA Considerations section and
confirms the veracity the registration.
This document defines no new IANA registries. It does, however, populate
existing SIP CLF registry with a new entry. Such a population requires
IETF Review registration policy, which is fulfilled by the document under
consideration.
(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 shepherd has reviewed the examples in Section 5.1, including
unencoding the base64 text to ensure that they match the cleartext (they
do).
Beyond this, the document itself does not define new XML, BNF rules or
MIB definitions.