(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 a rate-based overload control mechanism for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to prevent signaling overload. It uses the framework defined in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control specification and adds the specifications needed for a rate-based control mechanism. With this specification, SIP entities can choose between the loss-based overload control defined in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control and the rate-based overload control defined in this specification.
- Working Group Summary:
The developement of this document resulted from a discussion in the WG on the overload feedback type (the pro's and con's of the feedback types discussed in Section 9. of RFC 6357). The WG decided to use loss-based control as the default mechanism in draft-ietf-soc-overload-control but allow extensions for other feedback types. Rate-based control was agreed as a needed extension as it has benefits in some scenarios. This draft provides the needed specifications for rate-based overload control. This draft was non-controversial and was is substantial interest in this specification. There was no competing proposal and it addresses the WG deliverable 'A specification for an SIP overload control mechanism based on implicit/explicit feedback'
- Document Quality:
The basic mechanisms defined in this specification have been implemented and evaluated in several simulators as part of the work of the SIPPING Overload Control Design Team. The results of these evaluations were presented in several SIPPING WG meetings. The document has been reviewed several times as it has been developed by several members of the SOC WG including Salvatore Loreto, Janet Gunn, Christer Holmberg, James Yu, Keith Drage and Vijay Gurbani.
Shepherd: Volker Hilt <email@example.com>
AD: Richard Barnes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(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. 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?
- 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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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.)
(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.
- No nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
- Does not apply.
(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.
(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.
(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.
- Does not apply.