Shepherd writeup
rfc7081-09

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax-06

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 13 June 2013


   (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 Informational. This is
the proper type of RFC as it defines no new protocol elements nor does
it require any IANA registrations.   This RFC type is indicated on the
title page.

    (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 describes suggested practices for combined use of the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and
Presence Protocol (XMPP).  Such practices aim to provide a single
fully featured real-time communication service by using complementary
subsets of features from each of the protocols.  Typically such
subsets would include telephony capabilities from SIP and instant
messaging and presence capabilities from XMPP.  This specification
does not define any new protocols or syntax for either SIP or XMPP.
However, implementing it may require modifying or at least
reconfiguring existing client and server-side software.  Also, it is
not the purpose of this document to make recommendations as to
whether or not such combined use should be preferred to the
mechanisms provided natively by each protocol (for example, SIP's
SIMPLE or XMPP's Jingle).  It merely aims to provide guidance to
those who are interested in such a combined use.

        Working Group Summary:
        Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
        it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
        about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
        document?

Per the RAI area process for new work, this document has been reviewed
in the DISPATCH WG. The DISPATCH WG does not progress any documents as
WG documents.  The DISPATCH WG selects one the following actions for
contributions to the WG that have been adequately reviewed and
discussed:
- None in the case of work items for which there is inadequate
interest or feedback indicates that the work should not be progressed
(e.g., it's a bad idea or not within scope for RAI area or IETF)
- New work item in currently chartered WG
- New WG or mini-WG in the case where the deliverable is likely a
single document - e.g. a new SIP header
- IETF official BoF - typically for work items that are of broad
interest and potential impact within the RAI area and across areas.
- Individual/AD sponsored - for items limited in scope and applicability

Individual/AD sponsored was the consensus of the DISPATCH WG for this
document and the AD(s) agreed to progress the document.  There was no
controversy around this decision.

         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?

This document provides suggested practices for the combined usage of
two existing protocols: SIP and XMPP.   There are folks that support
both SIP and XMPP in their products that plan to follow the practices
as outlined in this document.  Aaron Evans and Dan Christian Bogos
both reviewed the -04 version of this document and deemed it a useful
reference that they plan to follow for their implementations.  Markus
Isomaki reviewed the -02 version and his comments were incorporated in
a subsequent revision.  In addition, other experts/implementers have
reviewed the document as described in the Acknowledgement section of
the document.

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

Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.  Gonzalo
Camarillo is the Responsible AD.

     (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 thoroughly reviewed this version of the document.

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

There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

     (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.

There are no specific concerns or issues.

    (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 discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
        disclosures.

No.

    (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?

There is WG consensus that AD sponsored is the best approach for
progressing this document. No one has expressed concerns about its
progression.

    (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 2.12.17. There is one warning
about the date which is innocuous as well as a reference to an earlier
version of a draft.  Both those will naturally be addressed by the RFC
editor.

    (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 DISPATCH WG are required
for this document.

    (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
         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).

This document requires no IANA considerations.

    (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.

This document defines no new IANA registries.

    (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.

No reviews or automated checks were required as this document does not
use any formal language requiring such.



Back