(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 type is selected due to the normative changes to RFC
3263, which is a standards-track document. The draft header indicates that
it is standards-track.
(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 lays the groundwork for future "Happy Eyeballs"-style
work on SIP by updating DNS procedures for SIP URI resolution rules
in a way that clarifies behavior for SIP stacks that support both
IPv4 and IPv6.
Working Group Summary
The document spent several years in the working group, with
occasional bursts of activity. The final push to completion
was performed over the past few months by a concerted effort of a new
author, who both incorporated long-standing feedback from the working group
and worked out some of the finer details of the document. No aspect of
the discussion proved controversial.
The document received in-depth review from a small handful of
working group participants, and the results of those reviews
were incorporated into the final version. No implementations
of the protocol described in the document are known to exist yet;
however, some of the problems addressed by the draft have been
concretely demonstrated at the SIPit 31 interop event (which also
highlighted some previously unnoticed problems with dual-stack
address resolution). Dan Wing provided expert review for interaction
with "Happy Eyeballs" techniques.
Adam Roach is the document shepherd. Ben Campbell 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 document is short, and its scope is relatively narrow. The
shepherd has read through the final version of the draft for
coherence and technical soundness. Aside from some editorial
nits that should be caught by the RFC editor, the document is
in good shape.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
While working group feedback was decidedly low-key, the procedure revisions
described in this document are somewhat arcane. The number of participants and
level of activity was approximately as expected.
(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
This document clarifies and updates DNS procedures for SIP server address
resolution, in preparation for follow-on "Happy Eyeballs for SIP" work. Dan
Wing provided an expert review (via email) of the document from this angle.
The result of his review was posted to the SIPCORE list:
(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 shepherd has no concerns about 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 conformance with BCPs 78 and 79.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No disclosure has 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?
There were only a few WG participants who were involved with the
discussion of this document (on the order of 10 or so, over its
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
The document passes both automated checks and a manual examination
against the nits checklist.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal reviews are applicable.
(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?
(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 normative downrefrefs are present.
(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 document's sole purpose is to normatively update the procedures in
RFC 3263. This is spelled out in the abstract, introduction, and throughout
the rest of the 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 IANA section is appropriately empty.
(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.
This document requires no actions of IANA.
(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 formal languages to validate.