Shepherd writeup
rfc7131-08

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

       Informational 

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

       This document provides non-normative example call flows
       that demonstrate the use of the History-Info header field
       defined in draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis.

    Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

       Yes

(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

   This document describes use cases and documents call flows which
   require the History-Info header field to capture the Request-URIs as
   a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Request is retargeted.  The use
   cases are described along with the corresponding call flow diagrams
   and messaging details.

Working Group Summary

   There was considerable debate about the placement of 
   these call flows: all within the bis draft, all in a separate draft, 
   or some in the bis and some in this separate draft. This is largely
   a matter of taste. Ultimately the WG decided that a separate draft
   for all the call flows was preferred.

   It took an exceedingly long time to get this document adequately
   reviewed and to resolve issues with rfc4244bis that the reviews
   resolved. It has been hard to get attention on this because
   rfc4244bis has been considered "done" for a long time by those
   who care.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 

     NA. See the writeup for 4244bis. 

  Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? 

     NA. See the writeup for 4244bis. 

  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?

     Dale Worley did very heavy lifting reviewing all of
     these call flows, checking all the details. He deserves
     five gold stars.

     Roland Jesske, Laura Liess, and Marianne Mohali
     also did careful reviews that led to fixes.

  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?

     There is nothing in this document that calls for an
     expert review.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? 

     Paul Kyzivat

  Who is the Responsible Area Director?

     Richard Barnes

(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.

   I have followed this document throughout its evolution.
   I also did a final read-through while preparing this writeup.
   And I ran IdNits on it. IdNits reports no errors and no warnings.

   It has been a long haul, but I now think the document is
   ready for publication.

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

   It was difficult to get adequate reviews of this document.
   All the examples have been around for years. Most were in
   RFC4244, and were simply evolved based on the changes made
   in rfc4244bis. Finally I held up rfc4244bis until we had a 
   thorough review of the call flows. It turned out that the
   call flows in RFC4244 were themselves buggy. And the new
   review identified some issues with rfc4244bis. After some
   extensive discussion the call flows and the bis have been
   reconciled. I am now satisfied with the level of review.

(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.

   No.

(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.

   None.

(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.

  YES. No IPR has been filed against this draft.

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

   None 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 are two camps within the WG. One camp considers the
   History-Info header field to be important, while the other
   considers it worthless/silly. There are substantial numbers of
   participants in each camp. The camp in favor includes those with
   a strong interest in 3GPP IMS. The camp with an interest are
   strongly in favor. The other camp has not objected. 

(10) 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 publicly available.) 

   No one has indicated extreme discontent.

(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
thorough.

   None.

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

   None of these apply to this document.

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

   Yes.

(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?

   No.
   There are mutual informative references between this document
   and draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis. 

   I just noticed that there is an informative reference to
   draft-ietf-enum-cnam-08, which expired long ago. It isn't
   important, but should probably be removed.

(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.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
     existing RFCs? 

        No.

     Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
     in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

        N/A

     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.

        N/A

(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, and that is appropriate.

(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.

   None

(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.

   None
Back