Shepherd writeup

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? 
Proposed Standard.  This is an extension to the SIP protocol and standards track is appropriate.  Standards Track is indicated on the 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:
Called parties often wish to decide whether to accept, reject or
redirect calls based on the likely nature of the call.  For example,
they may want to reject unwanted telemarketing or fraudulent calls,
but accept emergency alerts from numbers not in their address book.
This document describes SIP Call-Info parameters and a feature tag
that allow originating, intermediate and terminating SIP entities to
label calls as to their type, confidence and references to additional

Working Group Summary:
This document fits into the general area the stir working group has been addressing, but deal with the problem of how a user expresses their wishes to their service provider to handle incoming calls based on information mechanisms like stir would provide.  It is a simple extension to the existing Call-Info header and is a relatively uncomplicated document.  It had a relatively smooth path through the normal sipcore process and has generally been well received.

Document Quality:
Several of the core sip experts have reviewed the document, but only offered relatively minor suggestions, which were incorporated in the text. The shepherd considers this to be a high quality document.

Who is the Document Shepherd? Brian Rosen, sipcore co-chair
Who is the 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 shepherd has read every version of this draft.  He believes the document is ready to publish
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any 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. 
None needed

(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. 
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?

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed on 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? 
This document has good consensus.  All of our regulars have read it, several have provided reviews.  It did not get a great deal of discussion, but chairs feel that is largely because it was a simple, uncomplicated mechanism

(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.) 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). 
There are some very minor nits (lines too long, reference that needed to be updated,..). The shepherd will make sure these are addressed prior to publication
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 
No special reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or 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? 
None.  The current version references a draft which has now been published as  RFC8224
(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. 

(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 does not change the status of any other document

(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 registers several new entries and creates a new registry.  The IANA instructions are clear.  
(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 new registry (Call-Info Types) will require a new Expert Reviewer.  The document author (Henning Shulzrinne) is the obvious choice for an expert.  The expert would not need much domain expertise to provide an adequate review, so finding an expert should be easy. 

(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. 
There is a very small piece of ABNF in the document which has had adequate review, including by the document shepherd.  It fits well with existing sip ABNF.