(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 RFC
type is indicated on the title page.
The directive from the AD is to use Informational. The original intent
was to use Historic. The requirement is to convey that this is not the
solution going forward.
(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
There is a need for having a globally unique session identifier for
the same SIP session, which can be consistently maintained across
Proxies, B2BUAs and other SIP middle-boxes, for the purpose of
Troubleshooting. This draft originally proposed a new SIP header
(Session-ID) to carry such a value, which is now being defined by the
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
This RFC, which contains the text of an individual Internet-Draft that
was submitted originally to the DISPATCH Working Group, is being
published now as an Informational document to provide a reference for
the work currently being defined in the INSIPID WG. The INSIPID WG
Session-ID solution replaces the 'legacy' solution presented in
draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-03 and intends to ensure
interoperability and backwards compatibility with such legacy
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 legacy Session-ID solution described in this document is very
widely deployed, especially by Service Providers providing 3GPP IMS.
The ubiquity of this legacy solution and the requirement that the
current INSIPID WG work be backwards compatible with it is the primary
driver for its publications as an Informational RFC that can be
referenced by the current INSIPID WG documents. This document does not
meet the requirements defined in
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Gonzalo Salgueiro (INSIPID 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.
No review was performed on this document by the document shepherd.
There is no desire to review the technical accuracy of the contents of
this document. The intent is to merely publish the legacy Session-ID
in its current form so that it can be referenced by the new INSIPID
Session-ID work that is replacing it, but needs to be backwards
compatible with it.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
N/A (See previous question).
(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.
(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 on the basis that this is
being published only to permanently document a legacy solution.
(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 discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures are filed against this draft or on its predecessors
under different names. It is possible that disclosures filed against
could also apply to this document, but no declaration has been made to
(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?
This document is not a milestone or a part of the INSIPID WG work
stream. Rather, it is being published with the sole intent of having a
permanent document that documents the widely deployed legacy
Session-ID solution that can be referenced by the current Session-ID
solution being developed in the INSIPID WG. There is strong WG
consensus to publish this document in its current form so that it can
be referenced by current INSIPID WG documents.
(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
(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 passes idnits 2.12.17.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
(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
No. All the normative references are for RFCs. None are downward
(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
interested community considers it unnecessary.
No RFC will be updated with the publication of this document.
(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 document registers a new header field name. The instructions for
performing this are clear. No other IANA registrations are required.
Note that the intent is that
either modify or replace this registration when it is published, as
that document uses the same header field (in an appropriately extended
(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
(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.