Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol (CCMP) Call Flow Examples
draft-ietf-xcon-examples-10

[Ballot comment]
The WG has made a few changes in response to my discuss and disagreed with some others. Talking to Robert, I'm satisfied that the issues have been considered thoroughly. I appreciate your work and patience.

[Ballot discuss]
This is an updated discuss based on -09:

Two issues related to passwords:

a. Is it  or ?  It's  in 6.2 message 1?  Where is that defined?  It's not in 4575, or any of the other two xcon drafts on the telechat this week.

The -09 version still includes the following:

 
          Alice83
          13011983
       

I thought that was being changed to ?


b. Should these be exchanged over HTTPS!?

Section 3 includes:

  Section 4
  presents an overview on CCMP, together with some implementation-
  related details and related matters like HTTP transport and
  notifications.

Section 4 includes:

  In Section 4.2, an
  effective CCMP interaction is presented by exploiting HTTP as a
  transport.

Section 5 includes:

  This also applies to CCMP, whose flows are related to the
  protocol alone, hiding any detail concerning the transport that may
  have been used (e.g., HTTP).

Should all of these be changed to HTTPS?

[Ballot discuss]
It's not clear to me why RFCs 3261, 4579, 4597, 4575, 5567, and draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model and draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows are not all normative references. As far as I can tell, these are all required reading to understand this document.

[I will likely clear this next one immediately, but I'm leaving here because I want to discuss this in the context of the other two xcon documents] I'm again worried about text that is common between documents, especially section 4 of this document. In particular, the information in 4.2 looks like it should be in section 9 of draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp.

[Ballot comment]
I'm again worried about text that is common between documents, especially section 4 of this document. In particular, the information in 4.2 looks like it should be in section 9 of draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp.

[Ballot discuss]
It's not clear to me why RFCs 3261, 4579, 4597, 4575, 5567, and draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model and draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows are not all normative references. As far as I can tell, these are all required reading to understand this document.

[Ballot discuss]
1. It's not clear to me why RFCs 3261, 4579, 4597, 4575, 5567, and draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model and draft-ietf-mediactrl-call-flows are not all normative references. As far as I can tell, these are all required reading to understand this document.

2. I'm again worried about text that is common between documents, especially section 4 of this document. In particular, the information in 4.2 looks like it should be in section 9 of draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp.

[Ballot comment]
There's a couple of places where Alice's xcon-userid: is alice@example.com and not Alice@example.com.  Not sure if you did this on purpose or not.

[Ballot discuss]
Two issues related to passwords:

a. Is it  or ?  It's  in 6.2 message 1?  Where is that defined?  It's not in 4575, or any of the other two xcon drafts on the telechat this week.

b. Should these be exchanged over HTTPS!?

[Ballot comment]
I am ballotting "No Objection" after only a light skim of the document, mainly trusting the RAI ADs to have checked this document. However, I do wonder whether one sentence in the Abstract is open to misinterpretation. It says:

  The
  objective is to provide a base reference for both protocol
  researchers and developers.

That sounds like the flows in this document form part of the normative definition of the protocol. This is presumably not the intention of this Informational I-D. You can resolve this simply by moving that sentence from the Abstract to the Introduction and qualifying it by deferring to I-D.ietf-xcon-ccmp.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol (CCMP) Call Flow Examples) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Centralized Conferencing WG
(xcon) to consider the following document:
- 'Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol (CCMP) Call Flow
  Examples'
  as an Informational RFC

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 2011-03-04. 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.

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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xcon-examples/

(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?

Alan Johnston is the Document Shepherd. I have personally reviewed the
draft-ietf-xcon-examples-06.txt version of this document and
believe it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

(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?

This document has had good review both within and outside the working
group. I have no concerns about the reviews that have been performed.


(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.


(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 known issues. No known IPR.

(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 XCON Working Group has a relatively small, but committed group of
about a dozen individuals who have participated over many years and
contributed large amounts of effort and text. The examples are
generated from actual running code of the CCMP protocol.


(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.


(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?

Yes.


(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?

The document does have normative and informative references.

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].

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?

Yes.

If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries?

No IANA registries are created.

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 [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

No IANA registries are created.


(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?

Yes.

(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.

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?

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?



The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol'
as an Informational document.

This document is the product of the Centralized Conferencing Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Robert Sparks and Gonzalo Camarillo.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-examples-06.txt

Technical Summary

This document provides detailed call flows for the scenarios
documented in the Centralized Conferencing (XCON) Framework and the
XCON Scenarios using the Centralized Conferencing Manipulation
Protocol (CCMP). The objective is to provide a base reference for
both protocol researchers and developers.

Working Group Summary

This document is a product of the XCON working group.
Its contents have been uncontroversial in working group
discussions.

Document Quality

There are multiple implementations of CCMP.

Personnel

Alan Johnston is the Document Shepherd for this document.
Robert Sparks is the responsible Area Director.