Shepherd writeup
rfc8898-17

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 1 November 2019.

(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 header. This draft updates RFC 3261.


(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 defines the "Bearer" authentication scheme for
   the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), and a mechanism by
   which user authentication and SIP registration authorization
   is delegated to a third party, using the OAuth 2.0 framework
   and OpenID Connect Core 1.0.  This document updates RFC 3261
   to provide guidance on how a SIP User Agent Client (UAC)
   responds to a SIP 401/407 response that contains multiple
   WWW-Authenticate/Proxy-Authenticate header fields. 


Working Group Summary:

   This work has been discussed the sipcore working group for a 
   while. It is much scaled down from its original scope, and 
   contains the core of what the working group had consensus on. 

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 

   The authors indicated that there was at least one implementation 
   of this. It's assumed that it will be deployed in 3GPP networks. 
   During WGLC, the chairs asked if there were any other implementation 
   plans, but no reviewers chose to share that info. 


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? 

   Several reviewers provided a lot of constructive feedback. 
   They are thanked in the Acknowledgments section.  


Personnel:

   Document Shepherd:  Jean Mahoney

   Responsible Area Director:  Murray Kucherawy 


(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 doc shepherd carefully followed review feedback to ensure it 
   had been incorporated. She also did her own careful review. 


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

   No, the concept has been very well reviewed by the sipcore WG. 


(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. 

   The document shepherd doesn't have 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?

   The authors are not aware of any IPR disclosures associated with the draft. 


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 
   
   No. 


(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? 

   Although the document has been thoroughly reviewed multiple times, there 
   did not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm among WG participants for implementing
   this solution. More than one reviewer indicated that they were not that 
   familiar with OAuth.


(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. 


(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. 


  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
     a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

     Boilerplate looks ok to the shepherd, so not sure what id-nits is complaining 
     about.

  -- 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
     https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

     The document does not have any content that was submitted before Nov 2008.


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

   The document does not need a formal review. 


(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. 


(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. 

   [OPENID]   Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and
              C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0", February 2014.


(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. 

   No. 


(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). 

   There are no IANA considerations in this 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. 

   N/A


(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, YANG modules, etc.

   The document shepherd reviewed the ABNF as did other WG participants. 


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

   N/A 
Back