Scaling Requirements for Presence in SIP/SIMPLE
draft-ietf-sipcore-presence-scaling-requirements-02

[Ballot comment]
Per my Discuss on draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis there
will be some further scaling considerations related to security, I
think.

REQ-004 is good, but refers to "existing security requirements."

Are there, however, additional requirements that the need for scaling
should put on security for presence subscription?

[Ballot discuss]
I have entered a Discuss to hold the document pending the Discussion of draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis with respect to the impact of Security on scaling (see also my Comment on this document).

It is possible that the resolution of that other Discuss will lead to no changes being necessary to this document, but we have to wait and see.

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Christian Vogt on 22-Sep-2009 raised a few
  points:

  - It would be worth mentioning in the introduction of the document
    what the expected result of this document should be.  Obviously,
    we are expecting (or hoping for) an improvement in the scalability
    of SIP/SIMPLE, but this should be made explicit.  Also, do we have
    estimates of how much SIP/SIMPLE will improve?

  - The document only talks about "optimizations" to which the defined
    requirement should apply.  How about other types of protocol
    enhancements, such as functional extensions?  Wouldn't the defined
    requirements apply to those just as well?

[Ballot comment]
1.

REQ-009: Presence systems (intra- or inter-domain) SHOULD scale in
      linear proportion to the number of watchers and presentities in
      the system.

To what does 'in linear proportion' refer to? I suspect it is related to the number of messages, state size, and management and processing load - it would be good to make this explicit.

2. It would have been useful to discuss and add a requirement about the scalability of the management applications and operational tools. As presence systems increase in number and complexity they still need to remain manageable and operational - this aspect is not discussed at all in the document.

[Ballot comment]
Per my Discuss on draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis there
will be some further scaling considerations related to security, I
think.

REQ-004 is good, but refers to "existing security requirements."

Are there, however, additional requirements that the need for scaling
should put on security for presence subscription?

[Ballot comment]
Editorial comments/clarifications.

Abstract and first para of intro:

Abstract

  The document lists requirements for optimizations of SIP/SIMPLE
  that will allow for greater scalability of presence by reducing
  the load on the network and the
  presence servers due to inter-domain presence subscriptions.

If the WG is comfortable with SHOULD in these three requirements, then OK but I'm a little surprised these aren't MUST.

  o  REQ-001: The solution SHOULD NOT deprecate existing protocol
      mechanisms defined in SIP/SIMPLE.

  o  REQ-002: Existing SIP/SIMPLE clients SHOULD be able to communicate
      with clients and servers that implement new presence scaling
      features.

  o  REQ-003: The solution SHOULD NOT constrain any existing RFC
      functional requirements for presence.

Slight re-wording for precision?

  o  REQ-011: The solution MUST allow presence systems to accommodate
      on the order of ten of million users in each peer domain.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Gonzalo Camarillo, who believes this draft is
ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This draft has been reviewed by the SIPPING WG (this draft was moved to
the SIPCORE WG when the SIPPING WG was closed down). Additionally, three
dedicated reviewers reviewed the draft.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization, or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

The document shepherd did not think this draft was needed because it
only contained too general information and requirements. However, when
he asked the SIPPING WG, there was consensus that this draft would be
useful and that should be published.

(1.e) 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?

Most participants agree with the document.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document has to unused RFCs in its References section. This can be
resolved in its next revision (should one be needed) or in an RFC
Editor's note.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Its only normative references is an RFC.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The draft has a null IANA Considerations Section.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There is no formal language.

(1.k) 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
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

The document provides a set of requirements for enabling interdomain
scaling in presence for SIP/SIMPLE.

Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?

Nothing worth noting.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?

Vijay Gurbani, Hisham Khartabil, and Jean Francois Mule served as
dedicated reviewers for this document.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'

Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd. Robert Sparks is the
responsible AD.