Shepherd writeup
rfc7106-04

Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ivov-grouptextchat-purpose

(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?

An Informational RFC is being requested, as indicated in the title
page header. Initially this RFC was requested as a Proposed Standard,
but after the IESG discussed it, the decision was to perform this type
of registration through an Informational RFC.

(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

This document defines and registers a value of "grouptextchat" (Group
Text Chat) value for the URI <purpose> element of SIP's Conference
Event Package (RFC4575).

Working Group Summary

This draft was discussed in the DISPATCH working group. The conclusion
of the discussions was that it was appropriate to AD sponsor it. It
raised no controversy. The document just registers a new value for the
“URI purposes” sub-registry of the “sip-parameters” registry.

Document Quality

There are no current implementations of this specification that the
document shepherd is aware of, but two different implementors (one
using RFC4575 with SIP and the other one with XMPP) showed interest in
it due to the increasing interest in SIP and XMPP interoperability.

Personnel

The document shepherd is Saúl Ibarra Corretgé.
The responsible area director is Gonzalo Camarillo.

(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 has been reviewed by the shepherd and he believes it’s
ready 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 shepherd does not have any concerns as the document
was thoroughly discussed in the DISPATCH WG and several key members
approved it.

(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 interested
community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The documents shepherd has 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.

The document author indicated that no IPR disclosures will be filled
on this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR disclosure that references this document has been filed.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The consensus was solid and key participants in both the SIP and the
XMPP communities agreed upon it.

(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 one indicated discontent with the document.


(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 shepherd has not found any nits with the ID nits tool.

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

Not applicable.

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

Yes, all references have been identified in the corresponding 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, all normative references are RFCs.

(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 interested community 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).

The IANA consideration section is consistent with the body of the
document. The shepherd can confirm that the extensions defined in this
document are reserved in the appropriate registries.

(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.

Not applicable.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.

Back