Shepherd writeup

Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts, current version 7.  Date of this writeup: November 31, 2015.  Document Shepherd: Brian Rosen

(1) This document is Informational.  The document header indicates Informational.  This document only contains explanatory information concerning the p2psip protocol and other documents and is properly classified as “Informational”.
(2) Document Announcement Write-Up:
Technical Summary:
This document defines concepts and terminology for the use of the Session Initiation Protocol in a peer-to-peer environment where the traditional proxy-registrar and message routing functions are replaced by a distributed mechanism.  These mechanisms may be implemented using a distributed hash table or other distributed data mechanism with similar external properties.  This document includes a high-level view of the functional relationships between the network elements defined herein, a conceptual model of operations, and an outline of the related problems addressed by the P2PSIP working group and the RELOAD protocol [RFC6940] and SIP usage. 

Working Group Summary:
This document has had a relatively long gestation period in the working group, and it fact languished for several years.  After development of the protocol and other documents, it was felt that completing the concepts document would be helpful for readers of the protocol and other documents to understand the basic concepts behind the protocol.  As  result, this document was updated to reflect the evolution of the various documents and it now reflects the documented state of the protocol.  There were no notable disagreements within the working group over the development of the document.  
Document Quality:
The document was written by one of the original contributors to the entire p2psip effort, and has benefitted from review of the more active workgroup’s participants.  I believe it accurately reflects the concepts behind the RELOAD protocol.
Brian Rosen is the Document Shepherd.  Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area Director.
(3) I have completed a thorough review of the document and believe it is ready to be published.
(4) Knowledgeable people have reviewed the document and no significant concerns were raised.  All minor issues have been resolved.
(5) This document only explains the concepts behind the protocol and thus has no concerns requiring specialized review. 
(6) Neither the work group nor I have any concerns or issues.
(7) Each author has 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. 
(8) There are no IPR disclosures filed on the draft.
(9) As with many IETF working groups, interest in finishing has flagged, and we did struggle to get sufficient reviews.  However, we had strong concurrence within the larger working group that the document should be published.  There were no dissents.
(10) There are no threatened appeals and no dissenters, strong or otherwise.  
(11) There are some minor nits that should be handled in normal RFC editor processing: the abstract has references which need to be turned into text descriptions.
(12) This document does not define any MIBs, media types or URNs, and thus no reviews for those items is needed.
(13) The references all informative.
(14) There is a reference to other p2psip documents, all of which are in the final stages of review and publication.
(15) See (14) above.
(16) This document does not change the status of any RFCs.  
(17) This document orequires no IANA actions.
(18) The document does not create any new registries.
(19) This document does not contain any XML, BNF, MIB or other formal language constructs.  The document does contain XML schemas.