[Ballot comment]
4: There's a noun missing here:

  By contrast, in
  MSRP sessions (including groupchat sessions) are considered to be a
  type of media (similar to audio/video sessions)

The bullet list refers to "muc.example.com", but Figure 1 shows "rooms.example.com".

The particular endpoints for both romeo and juliet are not shown in the figure, but the bullet list doesn't say, "not shown in diagram".

[Ballot comment]

- Figure 1 is way complicated. I guess it might just
need to be but it's fairly unreadable. If you think it
worth looking at again, then maybe dropping the outer
boundary "lines" might make it clearer.

- 5.4: is the use of ellipsis for the SIP version of
xmpp's "from" in table 3 sufficiently clear? Are there
any quote characters or other stuff that might be gotten
wrong? I wonder if the tables are a little too terse.

[Ballot comment]
Two question about this text out of the ACK section:
"Some text in this document was borrowed from [RFC7247] and from
  [XEP-0045]."

This draft has the standard IETF copyright template upfront and 'borrows' text from [XEP-0045]. I assume borrows actually mean copying text, isn't it?

Do the authors and the responsible AD see any conflicts between the copyright of [XEP-0045] and the copyright of this document?

Are the borrowed text parts out of [XEP-0045] marked somehow? I could find the parts.

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 5.5.2 --

  The XMPP message type ought to
  be "chat" (and is not allowed to be "groupchat").

I think this is fine, but because of your careful and measured use of 2119 throughout the document set, I wonder how this is meant to be different from 'and MUST NOT be "groupchat"'?

-- Section 5.8 --

I suggest:

OLD
  |    <status>Time to go!</status>

NEW
  |    <status>O, look! methinks I see my cousin's ghost</status>

END

-- Section 10 --
My comment in stox-chat applies here, as well, though I note that in this case you do not already have a reference to stox-im to work with.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <stox@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-10.txt> (Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Groupchat) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the SIP-TO-XMPP WG (stox) to
consider the following document:
- 'Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the
  Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Groupchat'
  <draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-10.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-03-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the
  exchange of instant messages in the context of a multiparty chat
  session among users of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and
  users of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).
  Specifically, this document defines a mapping between the SIP-based
  Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) and the XMPP Multi-User Chat
  (MUC) extension.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stox-groupchat/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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 24 February 2012.

===============================================================

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-08

To be Published as: Proposed Standard

Prepared by: Yana Stamcheva (yana@jitsi.org)

(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?

This document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard.

(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

  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 defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of instant
messages in the context of a multiparty chat session among users of the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) and users of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).
Specifically, this document defines a mapping between the SIP-based Message Session
Relay Protocol (MSRP) and the XMPP Multi-User Chat (MUC) extension.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in 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 document has been subjected to a number of reviews in the STOX WG. Thorough
reviews have also been made by experts in XMPP and SIP areas in the last few months
and the document has been updated to address all raised issues and concerns. There
were no controversial points regarding it.

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?

There are already several vendors having full or partial implementations of the
specification, among which Jabber/Cisco, Kamailio (OpenSER), AG Projects (Silk Server).
Some of the people behind these implementations have actively participated in the
discussions in the WG.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Yana Stamcheva is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Alissa
Cooper.

(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 Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document and thinks it is ready
for forwarding to IESG for publication.

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

No. The document has been out for a few years (1st version at the end of 2008) and was
subjected to many reviews. A WGLC was done in May 2014 and reviews have been made
from an important number of active members. Some more reviews have been done after
the WGLC and the document has been updated to address all raised issues and
concerns.

(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.

I have no such 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 IPR disclosure that references this document has been 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? 

The WGLC has revealed a solid consensus among the active members of the STOX WG
for this document going forward to publishing. There were no objections.

(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 was checked using idnits 2.13.01. There is an innocuous warning about the
document date and the document copyright year. Also a warning about possible down-
reference has been found for a document defined by the XMPP Standards Foundation,
which has been checked by the document shepherd. There’s also one outdated reference
for draft-ietf-precis-nickname-12.

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

No formal reviews other than review in the STOX WG are required for this document.

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

Yes, all references in the document exist either in the normative or the informative
sections.

(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.

There’s a normative reference to draft-ietf-precis-nickname-12, while the newest version is
-14. However the intention is to reference the last version of the document.

(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).

This document requests no actions of IANA.

(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.

The document contains a few XML code examples, which have been mechanically
verified.

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 24 February 2012.

===============================================================

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-08

To be Published as: Proposed Standard

Prepared by: Yana Stamcheva (yana@jitsi.org)

(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?

This document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard.

(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

  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 defines a bidirectional protocol mapping for the exchange of instant messages in the context of a multiparty chat session among users of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and users of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Specifically, this document defines a mapping between the SIP-based Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) and the XMPP Multi-User Chat (MUC) extension.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in 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 document has been subjected to a number of reviews in the STOX WG. Thorough reviews have also been made by experts in XMPP and SIP areas in the last few months and the document has been updated to address all raised issues and concerns. There were no controversial points regarding it.

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?

There are already several vendors having full or partial implementations of the specification, among which Jabber/Cisco, Kamailio (OpenSER), AG Projects (Silk Server). Some of the people behind these implementations have actively participated in the discussions in the WG.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Yana Stamcheva is the document shepherd. The responsible area director is Alissa Cooper.

(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 Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document and thinks it is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.

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

No. The document has been out for a few years (1st version at the end of 2008) and was subjected to many reviews. A WGLC was done in May 2014 and reviews have been made from an important number of active members. Some more reviews have been done after the WGLC and the document has been updated to address all raised issues and concerns.

(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.

I have no such 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 IPR disclosure that references this document has been 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? 

The WGLC has revealed a solid consensus among the active members of the STOX WG for this document going forward to publishing. There were no objections.

(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 was checked using idnits 2.13.01. There is an innocuous warning about the document date and the document copyright year. Also a warning about possible down-reference has been found for a document defined by the XMPP Standards Foundation, which has been checked by the document shepherd. There’s also one outdated reference for draft-ietf-precis-nickname-12.

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

No formal reviews other than review in the STOX WG are required for this document.

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

Yes, all references in the document exist either in the normative or the informative sections.

(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.

There’s a normative reference to draft-ietf-precis-nickname-12, while the newest version is -14. However the intention is to reference the last version of the document.

(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).

This document requests no actions of IANA.

(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.

The document contains a few XML code examples, which have been mechanically verified.