Shepherd writeup

(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

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. 

- Technical Summary:
The document defines an event package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to prevent signaling overload. The load event package complements feedback-based SIP overload control mechanisms. It allows SIP entities to distribute filtering policies to other SIP entities in the network. These policies contain rules to throttle requests based on their source or destination domain, telephone number prefix or for a specific user.

- Working Group Summary:
This draft complements the feedback-based SIP overload control mechanism for cases of known short-term overload (e.g., calls to a game show). This mechanism was developed in parallel to feedback-based SIP overload control and was adopted by the working group without contention.  There was no competing proposal to address the WG deliverable 'A specification for a SIP load filtering mechanism.'.

- Document Quality:
The specification has been implemented and evaluated in a simulator by the main author at Columbia University. NTT strongly supports the mechanism and co-authors the specification. France Telecom Orange has indicated that they want to use this spec as a basis for a 3GPP spec. The draft was first submitted to the SIPPING WG in 2008 and moved to SOC in 2010. It has been reviewed thoroughly by several members of the SOC WG including Bruno Chatras, Janet Gunn, Shida Schubert, Phil Williams, and Adam Roach.

- Personnel:
  Shepherd: Volker Hilt
  AD: Robert Sparks

(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 document was reviewed several times during its lifecycle by the shepherd.

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

-  No concerns on the reviews 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 took place.

- No additional review needed.

(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.

- No concerns.

(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.

(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?

-  A significant number of WG members were involved in the discussion of the document over time and it can be expected that the majority of the WG understands and agrees with the document.

(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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

-  No nits.

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

- This specification registers a SIP event package, a new MIME type, a new XML namespace, and a new XML schema. Since this is an IETF-stream standards-track document, none of these need additional 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.

- No

(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 5226).

- All protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries and the IANA considerations section is clear.

(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.

- No IANA registries are created.

(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.

- XML has been validated with and