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?

  Standards Track.  This document normatively updates a number of 
  standards track RFCs and thus it is appropriate that this should 
  be a Proposed Standard

(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

   RFC3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains
   the "name-addr / addr-spec" alternative to use name-addr when certain
   characters appear.  Unfortunately it expressed the constraints with
   prose copied into each header field definition, and at least one
   header field was missed.  Further, the constraint has not been copied
   into documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the

   This document updates RFC3261 to state the constraint generically,
   and clarifies that the constraint applies to all SIP header fields
   where there is a choice between using name-addr or addr-spec.  It
   also updates those extension SIP header fields that use the
   alternative to clarify that the constraint applies (RFCs 3325, 3515,
   3892, 4508, 5002, 5318, 5360, and 5502).

Working Group Summary

  This defect in 3261 has plagued SIP for some time, and is responsible 
  for several errata.  The working group was universal in it’s desire to 
  fix this once and for all.

Document Quality

  The document has been well reviewed within the SIP working group. 
  A number of improvements have been made based on reviewer comments.  
  The document is short, to the point, and clear.


  Brian Rosen 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 IESG.

  This is a short document. The shepherd has read every version 
  as they were published.

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

  The scope of reviews performed seems adequate and appropriate.

(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.

  The document requires no specialized expertise beyond that 
  possessed by  regular participants in the SIPCORE working group.

(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 such 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.

  The author has confirmed that no such declaration is necessary.

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

  There has been no IPR disclosure 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?

  Discussion of this document included several active participants 
  with experience dealing with the problems addressed by it, 
  including the errata reporter.  There is a strong consensus that 
  this document is needed, and it adequately addresses the issue.

(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 appeal or discontent has been expressed.

(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

  There are a few nits.  The document uses 2119 keywords but does not
  include a reference to the RFC.  The author agrees to add the 
  reference as part of resolving IETF comments to the doc.  
  The document is PS, because it normatively updates several PS 
  documents but it also updates several INFORMATIONAL documents, 
  which constitutes a "downref".  The shepherd has reviewed the 
  document against the checklist.

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

  No formal review requirements are triggered by this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  They have.

(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?

  All normative references are to published RFCs.

(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.

  Yes, the document is standards track but updates RFC 3325, 5002, 
  5318 and 5502, which are informational.

(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 published RFCs.

(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 IANA considerations 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.

  This document does not add any 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.

  There is no formal language defined in this document.  It references
  ABNF in other documents, but does not define any new ABNF.