Document writeup for "Requirements for an End-to-End Session Identification in
IP-Based Multimedia Communication Networks"
draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08
(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?
It is intended that the document be published as informational. It is not
intended that this document should be applicable directly to an implementation,
but rather identifies a set of requirements on which a future IETF solution
will be built; the latter document will be standards track. In the cases where
these requirements are a standalone document, they have traditionally been
published as an informational RFC. The document status is indicated in the
document 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:
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 specifies the requirements for an
end-to-end session identifier in IP-based multimedia communication networks.
This identifier would enable endpoints, intermediate devices, and management
and monitoring systems to identify a session end-to-end across multiple SIP
devices, hops, and administrative domains.
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?
The document has achieved working group consensus.
One particular issue was on how much terminology to define in this document,
and section 3 has been substantially worked upon within the working group.
There also has been significant discussion on the scoping of the work, and its
applicability to more complex scenarios. In accordance with the charter, the
work has been kept to the simpler scenarios, and the applicability to the more
complex scenarios will be limited to whatever works as a result. 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 no implementations as this is a requirements document. The working
group is currently working on a solutions document in
draft-ietf-insipid-session-id.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Keith Drage is the document shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo is the responsible area
director.
(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.
Primarily a read through to ensure all the text is consistent with the
remainder of the document, along with a check for editorial and idnit issues.
The working group has gone several times through each requirement in the
requirements clause in open discussion.
The document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews
that have been performed.
(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.
This document does not need reviews from a particular or a from a broader
perspective. The solution document might need such wider reviews, but this is
not appropriate for a requirements document.
(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.
The document shepherd has no 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?
Each author has confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures have been made.
Note that some authors have declared IPR on the related solutions document, but
do not consider such a declaration impacts the requirements document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
IPR disclosures have been filed on this document. These have been identified in
working group discussions, and further brought to the working group's attention
during the working group last call. No concerns have been raised within the
working group.
(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 contents of this document have been extensively discussed amongst many
individuals in this working group. A significant number of individuals have
indicated they had read the document during working group last call and had no
further comments.
(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 such view has been expressed.
(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.
No idnits have been found and the document passes the boilerplate checks.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document contains no material of a formal nature requiring such review.
(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?
All normative references are published 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 are no downward references.
(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 is not of such a nature to change any other 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 has no IANA considerations, as it makes no changes to any IANA
registry.
(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 has no IANA considerations, as it makes no changes to any IANA
registry.
(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 no material of a formal nature requiring such review.