PROTO write-up for draft-ietf-spp-framework
(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
Publication as Proposed Standard is being requested. The document
specifies a (transport-agnostic) provisioning protocol, including a
data and transaction model, hence the WG is in strong concensus that
Standards Track is the proper document track.
The requested type of RFC is included 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:
This document specifies the data model and the overall structure for
a framework to provision session establishment data into Session Data
Registries and SIP Service Provider data stores. The framework is
called the Session Peering Provisioning Framework (SPPF). The
provisioned data is typically used by network elements
Working Group Summary:
Given the small size of the working group, particularly towards the
end of the document creation process, most of the active WG
participants were also part of the Design Team. All issues were
discussed extensively in the Design Team to achieve strong consensus.
Since the design team represented a vast majority of the active WG
participants, the shepherd believes that there is strong concensus by
the WG behind the documents.
During the design process a complete restructuring of the set of
documents was performed, in order for the protocol to become transfer-
agnostic. Specifically, this was in consideration of an additional
future REST-based transport specification.
A prototype-level implementation was performed by WG participants,
involving programmers who were not involved in the protocol
specification. Lessons learned from that implementation were fed back
into the protocol specification. Furthermore, the Design Team that
created the documents included several potential implementers with
concrete plans to use the protocol in their networks.
The design team was in substantive favour of using SOAP as transfer
protocol, since this is what target networks currently use for
provisioning. However, due to concerns brought to the attention of the
group from within as well as outside the working group, significant
efforts were undertaken to segregate core („framework“) definitions
from the actual transport definition, and hence allow ing for the
future definitions of other transport protocols.
Alexander Mayrhofer serves as the Document Shepherd, and Richard
Barnes serves as 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
The document shepherd performed a detailed NITS review on version -04,
and an additional review on version -05. Subsequent versions only
contained minor modifications, and the shepherd performed an
additional automated NITS review on version -09. Additionally, the
document was reviewed by the same person during WGLC, and many times
before that. All issues are believed to be addressed in the latest
version of the document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Due to the small size of the WG (particularly after splitting off the
transport protocol definitions), reviews were mostly performed by the
Design Team members themselves. However, during WGLC the WG chairs
specifically engaged „outside“ reviewers in order to get „fresh eyes“
on the document. Subsequently, their comments were addressed in
(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
The document contains XML Schema definitions. Even though the Schemas
were reviewed and validated by authors / reviewers, the document could
benefit from an additional “3rd party” validation of the Schemas.
(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
The document specifies an IANA Registry with just 1 (one) initial
entry. Since additional entries are believed to be very infrequent,
the IESG’s advice is desired whether to remove that Registry in favour
of a „static“ definition with that single entry (and advice that
future specifications might want to create an IANA registry
(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 of the draft, and that they are not a ware 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
No IPR claims have 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?
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. Due to the small size of the WG, active participants
were almost exclusively also part of the Design Team. Therefore, there
is solid WG consensus behind the document.
(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
The document shepherd performed a detailed NITS review for version
-05. Between -05 and the current -09 version, there were (with the
exception of adding a formal IANA registry definition) only editorial
changes and NITS fixes.
An automated NITS check was performed on version -09 in order to
confirm that all NITS have been fixed.
The automated NITS check seems to detected one unused reference,
however, a manual check confirms that the reference is being used in
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Besides the basic requirements, the document does not contain any
content that is believed to be subject to additional formal review
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes, references have been split in normative an 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 completion?
All normative references are RFC-level documents.
(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 are no downrefs
(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 requests two URN assignments for the XML namespace, and
the XML schema, respectively. Those are outlined in the IANA
Furthermore, the document specifies a newly created IANA registry that
is specified in detail in Section 11.2. The registry contains just a
single initial entry.
A reasonable name, allocation procedures and initial contents of that
registry has been specified.
However, feedback from the IESG is thought with regards to the
registry specification of the „SPPF Organization Identifier“. See (6)
above for details.
(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.
See above. The registry specified does not use “Expert Review” as the
(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 performed (besides the manual review) an
automated NITS check with idnits 2.13.0. Issues discovered by that
check are included in the NITS section above. Furthermore, the
Document Shepherd has validated the XML schema using automated tools.
Furthermore, Ning Zhang has volunteered to perform a review,
submitting his results during the IETF LC.