Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-clarifications-04:
[This is based on the template version 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?
This document is marked as Standards Track in the title page header,
and that seems appropriate, because it is clarifying normative behavior
in RFC6665, that is itself 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:
The SIP REFER method relies on the SIP-Specific Event Notification
Framework. That framework was revised by RFC6665. This document
highlights the implications of the requirement changes in RFC6665,
and updates the definition of the REFER method, RFC3515, to clarify
and disambiguate the impact of those changes.
Working Group Summary
There was some controversy and difficulty in reaching agreement on this draft.
Before work on this draft and the companion draft (draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-
explicit-subscription) commenced, some (notably 3GPP) made attempts to use
existing mechanisms (RFC4488) to avoid the need for GRUUs. That mechanism as
insufficient on its own, and so was enhanced with particular conventions.
There was a desire to maintain compatibility with that work. This led to
careful word smithing. That has been discussed at length within the WG.
The results are now acceptable to all parties.
[Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification?]
I'm not aware of any implementations yet.
It is my understanding that 3GPP release 12 has a reference,
indicating that implementations can be expected.
This document has been thoroughly reviewed and discussed. Everyone
that had something to say has aired it.
The document shepherd is Paul Kyzivat.
The area director is 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 shepherd was a SIPCORE chairman during the entire period while this
document was introduced and discussed. He has followed (and participated
in) the discussion and reviewed the document carefully.
(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
(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
(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
(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 is good consensus.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
The following are reported by IdNits:
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3515, but the
abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC3515
though, so this could be OK.
It is indeed OK.
-- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you
have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
(See the Legal Provisions document at
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
This document has no content with such concern.
-- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
Only a downref because it is a draft. That document is also being submitted
for advancement in tandem with this one.
== Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
YES - needs to be updated to the eventual RFC.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(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.
There is a normative reference to draft-roach-sipcore-6665-clarification'.
The intent is that these two drafts should progress in parallel.
It is expected that this draft won't progress until/unless that
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the 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 5226).
IANA considerations are empty, and appropriately so.
(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.