Shepherd writeup

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?

Proposed Standard, which is indicated in the title 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 Geolocation SIP header field [RFC6442] indicates that the SIP message conveys location information, which is typically provided by a user agent client (UAC), such as a person's cell phone. However, a UAC is not the only SIP element that can add geolocation information. Mobile networks also have location information about the UACs that use their networks. SIP proxies and intermediaries can add this location information to the SIP message, but there has not been a way to identify which SIP entity contributed the location information. This specification defines a new parameter for the Geolocation header field that identifies the source that added the location information to the SIP message. 

Working Group Summary

This document started out in the DISPATCH working group, where it was discussed on list and presented at IETF 93. The DISPATCH plan originally was to have an AD sponsor the draft, but with the change in SIPCORE's charter allowing the WG to consider small, self-contained SIP extensions, the draft was dispatched to SIPCORE, where it was adopted.  

Document Quality
The draft received extensive feedback from both DISPATCH and SIPCORE participants, and reviewers have been thanked in the Acknowledgments section. 

Implementation notes:  this extension to the Geolocation header field has been requested by regulatory bodies and is expected to be deployed in European mobile networks. As of this writing, there is at least one implementation. 


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Jean Mahoney 

  Who is the Responsible Area Director? Adam Roach

(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 shepherd checked that all feedback provided on both the DISPATCH and SIPCORE lists was incorporated or otherwise addressed in document updates. This document is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. 

(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.


(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 shepherd has no concerns about this 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.

None of the authors have IPR on this document or know of any. 

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


(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 draft received support on the DISPATCH list before being sent SIPCORE. The SIPCORE WG adopted the draft with the support of seven SIPCORE WG participants and no objections. Feedback focused on the ABNF of the parameter with some feedback on the privacy and security considerations sections.  

(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). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

This document has a Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3325.

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

None required. This document adds a header field parameter to an IANA subregistry, but the registration procedure is "RFC required" and not expert review. 

(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. 

This document has a Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3325, Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks.

(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 updates RFC 6442. This information is clearly captured in the header, abstract, and introduction. 

(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 8126).

The IANA Considerations section clearly identifies the "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values" sub-registry within the "Session Initiation Protocols" registry and shows how to create a new row for the header field parameter specified in the document.   

(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.


(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 ABNF was hand checked and also checked with Bill's ABNF Parser (