Shepherd writeup
rfc7989-27

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

Intended Status: Proposed Standard. The RFC defines a new SIP protocol header field. The type is indicated 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:

Technical Summary

        The document describes an end-to-end Session Identifier for use in
   	IP-based multimedia communication systems that enables endpoints,
   	intermediary devices, and management systems to identify a session
   	end-to-end, associate multiple endpoints with a given multipoint
   	conference, track communication sessions when they are redirected,
   	and associate one or more media flows with a given communication
   	session.

Working Group Summary

       The work on the document took a relatively long time in the WG. The reason 
       was not so much related to controversies, or different opinions, but more related 
       to the cycles the authors and contributors were able to put on the work.
       There is a consensus in the INSIPID WG to publish the document as an RFC.

Document Quality

       A number of vendors have indicated that they have implemented, or intend to 
       implement, the document. Individuals representing the implementers were also 
       involved in the work on the document.
      
       The document is also referenced by 3GPP, and support is required for certain IMS 
       use-cases and functions.

Personnel

      Document Shepherd: Christer Holmberg (christer.holmberg@ericsson.com ¬ STRAW WG co-chair)

      Responsible Area Director: Ben Campbell

(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 is ready for publication.

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

     No.

(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.

     The Document Shepherd has no concerns or issues with the 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.

     Each author has confirmed that any appropriate IPR disclosure has been filed.

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

    The IPR disclosures can be found at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-insipid-session-id

    The disclosures were filed some years ago. The working group discussed the IPR disclosures, but still chose to progress 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?   

    The WG as whole understand the draft and agree with it being published as an RFC.

(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.

dnits 2.14.01 

/tmp/draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-22.txt:
/tmp/draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-22.txt(230): Possible code comment in line:            /* a58587da-c93d-11e2-ae90-f4ea67801e29 */.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
     sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
     '<CODE ENDS>' lines.


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: '0-9a-f' is mentioned on line 296, but not
     defined
     'sess-uuid           = 32(DIGIT / %x61-66)  ;32 chars of [0-9a-f...'

  == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 1601, but not
     defined
     '|  Session-ID  |     remote     |         No        | [RFCXXXX]...'

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2543
     (Obsoleted by RFC 3261, RFC 3262, RFC 3263, RFC 3264, RFC 3265)

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

    Not applicable.

(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.

(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.

     The publication will obsolete RFC 7329 (informative reference).

(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).

     There are no issues with the IANA considerations.

(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.

     There are no new IANA registries.

(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 BNF rules. The document does not use other types of formal languages.

Back