Identification of Communications Services in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sipping-service-identification-04

[Ballot comment]
Well written and easy to read, thanks.

To me, the recommendations in Section 7 are very important. I was hoping I would find them. I think you could usefully note in the Abstract and the Introduction that the document does make recommendations, and possibly you could include a "management summary" of those recommendations in the Introduction. (Note that the final paragraph of the Introduction lists the other sections but is too shy to mention the recommendations!)

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 10-Jul-2009 has not received a
  response.  Generally the document is well-written.  Please consider
  the major two points of the review:

  1.  Be more explicit about the 'considered harmful' thesis up front.

  2.  Bring out the negotiative nature of SIP signaling in the
      recommendations, requiring elements to take account of the whole
      signling exchange when deriving the service identity.

[Ballot comment]
4.3.  Network Quality of Service Authorization

  The IP network can provide differing levels of Quality of Service
  (QoS) to IP packets.  This service can include guaranteed throughput,
  latency, or loss characteristics.  Typically, the user agent will
  make some kind of QoS request, either using explicit signaling
  protocols (such as RSVP) or through marking of Diffserv value in

I think this needs an informative reference to RSVP RFC.

  packets.  The network will need to make a policy decision based on

(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?

Gonzalo Camarillo is the document sheperd for this document. He believes
that this version of the document is ready to be sent to the IESG.

(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?

The document has been widely reviewed on the SIPPING mailing list.

(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 concerns.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

The whole WG understands the issue and most people agree with it.

(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 satisfies ID nits.

(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].

The document only has "Informational" references (the RFC Editor will
probably change that to "Informative" references).

(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 document contains a no-op IANA 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?

No formal language is used in this document.

(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.

This document considers the problem of service identification in the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). Service identification is the
process of determining the user-level use case that is driving the
signaling being utilized by the user agent. This document discusses
the uses of service identification, and outlines several
architectural principles behind the process. It identifies perils
when service identification is not done properly - including fraud,
interoperability failures and stifling of innovation.

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?

The creation of this document was triggered by discussions with 3GPP in
the area of service identification. After those discussions, most active
participants supported the approach documented in this draft.

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?

This document does not define a protocol. There are existing
architectures using the approach discussed in 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 sheperd. Jon Peterson is the
responsible area director.