Shepherd writeup

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes ( on 16 January 2014 

   (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 obsoletes RFC 3455, which was originally published as an informational document.  Thus, Informational is appropriate. 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:

This document describes a set of private Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) header fields (P-headers) used by the 3rd-Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), along with their applicability, which is
limited to particular environments.  The P-header fields are for a
variety of purposes within the networks that the partners use,
including charging and information about the networks a call
        Working Group Summary:
        Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
        it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
        about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
This document has been discussed in the DISPATCH WG and in the SIPPING WG prior to that. The DISPATCH WG does not progress any documents as WG documents.  This document defines P-headers, which per the SIP Change process (RFC 3427), do not require WG consensus for publication.  While RFC 5727 deprecated the definition of P-headers for SIP, the P-headers in this document followed the procedures that were adopted by RFC 3427, which were in 
place at the time of publication of RFC 3455.  Individual/AD sponsored is the typical publication path.  

         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?

This document is required for the 3GPP/IMS specifications, thus any vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this specification.   

Dean Willis performed an expert review of this document, suggesting several changes, which have been incorporated.  Several other individuals reviewed and or commented on the document both on the DISPATCH WG mailing list, as well as previously on the SIPPING WG mailing list. 

         Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.  Richard Banes 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 has thoroughly reviewed this version of the document.  
     (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.

    (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 interested community has discussed those issues 
        and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, 
        detail those concerns here.

The only concern I have is that one of the authors indicated that he has not read any of the more recent versions. Thus, my concern is that he might actually bother to do that during AUTH48 and potentially raise non-trivial issues (as I've seen happen with other 
documents where authors haven't been engaged for a period of time).   

    (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.

    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
        If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR


    (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
        document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few 
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested 
        community as a whole understand and agree with it? 

There is WG consensus that AD sponsored is the best approach for progressing this document. 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.) 


    (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
         document. (See and the 
         Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
         this check needs to be thorough.

The document was checked using idnits 2.13.01.    There is a warning about the IP addresses in the examples, which do need to be changed to be within the documentation range per RFC 5735. While it's not indicated by idnits, there are still some domains which are not using the example domains as specified in 2606.   I believe these nits can be fixed along with any IETF Last Call comments. 

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
         criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type 

Per the SIP change process, this document requires expert review as it defines P-headers. Dean Willis performed the expert review. 

    (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
         either normative or informative?


    (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 


    (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. 


    (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 
         interested community considers it unnecessary.

This document obsoletes RFC 3455, which is indicated in the Title, abstract and
overview.   The changes/impact on RFC 3455 are described in
section 9. 

    (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 clearly identifies the IANA considerations.  This document defines no new IANA registries.  The only impact on IANA registrations is updating the references to the RFC number assigned when this document is published. 

    (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 

This document defines no new IANA registries, thus no expert review is required.

    (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate  
         sections of the document written in a formal language, such as 
         XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The ABNF for this document was validated using Bill Fenner's ABNF web parsing tool.