Shepherd writeup
rfc7433-17

(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?

draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui is a Standards Track document (Proposed Standard).  
The title page of the draft reflects this RFC type.  I believe that this 
is the proper type to categorize this draft because the drafts defines 
a new SIP header field, an associated SIP option tag, and establishes 
three new sub-registries under SIP parameter registry.  Furthermore, it 
also provides guidelines for SIP user agents and intermediaries on how 
to handle the new parameter.

(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 defines a new SIP header field, User-to-User Information (UUI),
to transport data between two SIP user agents opaquely.  Also defined is
an extension mechanism for new UUI packages.

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?

There was nothing contentious during the WG process worth noting.
Certain aspects like getting the right semantics for the hex encoding of 
the UUI data, whether or not conversion between encodings will be allowed 
at gateways, etc., engendered email discussions but consensus was
reached by all concerned parties equitably.

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 reported implementations of earlier version of the draft
from Avaya, Dialogic and Audiocodes.

This is work that other SDOs (3GPP) are waiting for.  

Laura Liess and Shida Schubert deserve mention for WGLC related to
this draft.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Vijay K. Gurbani
Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo

(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.

I reviewed the document for completeness, and besides one nit in
Section 1 and some unreferenced references (as discovered by idnits), I 
could not find anything structurally wrong with the document to warrant a 
delay in publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or 
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, The document was reviewed by Laura Liess, who has a long history
of participating in the WG.  The document was also reviewed by Shida
Schubert to ensure compliance to rfc4244bis (History-Info).  With 
reviews by Laura and Shida, I believe that the document has been 
exposed to both a focused as well as a broad review.

(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.

The document was reviewed by Shida Schubert to ensure compliance to 
rfc4244bis (History-Info).  Additionally, the CUSS mailing list has
subscribers from other related working groups (SIPCORE) and these
subscribers have been contributing a sizeable effort of their time
providing comments on the list.  The document has been a beneficiary
of such comments.


(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 do not have any specific concerns or issues regarding this document.

(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, I sent an email to the authors regarding IPR disclosures on 
Sept-17-2012.  I received an email response on the same day from all 
authors indicating that they are not aware of any IPR disclosures.

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

As far as I am aware of, there has not been any IPR disclosure filed that
references this document.

(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 WG consensus behind the document is strong.  The WG mailing list has
subscribers from related working groups (SIPCORE) participating in it,
and these subscribers have contributed thoughts and ideas to the draft.
The WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document.

(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 one has threatned an appeal or otherwise indicated 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 are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
   one being 1 character in excess of 72.
- Unused Reference: 'ETSI' is defined on line 721, but no explicit
  reference was found in the text
- Unused Reference: 'RFC3324' is defined on line 762, but no explicit
  reference was found in the text
- Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3324
- Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3325
- Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6567
- Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
  draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-08

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

The document has an IANA considerations section that is appropriately
filled out.  It does not require reviews related to MIBs.

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

Yes, however, there is one reference ([ETSI]) that appears in the list of
Informative References but is not referenced in the text itself.

(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?

There is one normative reference that refers to an I-D 
([I-D.ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis]).  Besides this, all normative references
refer to RFCs.

(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.

There is one normative reference referring to an Internet-Draft:
[I-D.ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis]
              Barnes, M., Audet, F., Schubert, S., Elburg, H., and C.
              Holmberg, "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) for Request History Information",
              draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-08 (work in progress),
              April 2012.
There are three other downward references that point to RFCs:

 - Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3324
 - Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3325
 - Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6567

Of these, the reference to RFC3224 is a dangling reference and the
authors will be asked to remove this before publication.  So, that
leaves downward references to two RFCs: 3325 (P-Asserted-Identity)
and 6567 (Problem statement for UUI).  

In my estimation, retaining these two downward references should not 
pose a problem since RFC3325 is well known within the (SIP) community 
and RFC6567 is the requirement document for the User-to-User header 
itself.

(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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any
existing RFCs.

(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 IANA Considerations section is sound.  More specifically:
(a) The document updates the existing SIP parameter registry by adding
    a new row that reserves a new header name, User-to-User;
(b) The document updates the existing SIP parameter registry by adding
    three parameters to the new User-to-User header --- encoding,
    content and purpose;
(c) The document establishes three new sub-registries under
     http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters; these sub-registries
     are described adequately in the document, including providing
     default values where application;
(d) The document reserves a new SIP option tag as per the guidelines of
    Section 27.1 of RFC3261.

(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 IANA registries defined in the document have a policy definition
of "RFC Required".  It was felt that having the IETF LC on any
new usages of UUI would be beneficial to bring to the attention of
the IESG any new work that derived from this document.

(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.

I have reviewed Section 4.1 (contains ABNF syntax for User-to-User
header field) and found all production rules to result in appropriate
terminals.  I have also reviewed the IANA consideration section to
make sure that the information required for User-to-User extension
packages is well specified.  I did not find anything of concern in
my review of these sections.
Back