Shepherd writeup
rfc6993-04

(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?

  Proposed Standard. Yes, the type of the requested RFC is indicated
  in the title page header.

(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 "impp" ("instant
  messaging and presence protocol") for the "purpose" header field
  parameter of the Call-Info header field in the Session Initiation
  Protocol (SIP).

Working Group Summary

  This draft was discussed in the DISPATCH working group. The
  conclusion of those discussions was that it was appropriate to AD
  sponsor it given that it was not controversial. The document is
  simply about the registration of an additional call-info header
  token and as such could even be viewed as a formality.

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 document shepherd isn't aware of current
  implementations. However there was interest in this work by vendors
  already implementing I-D.ivov-xmpp-cusax draft and there is a
  general interest in improving the interoperability among real-time
  communication endpoints that support combined use of SIP and XMPP,
  which is the purpose of the newly proposed header parameter value.

Personnel

  The document shepherd is Yana Stamcheva.
  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.

  I have reviewed the document, and believe it is ready for
  publication.

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

  I do not have any specific concerns regarding this document. The
  document has been presented and discussed adequately by key WG
  members in the DISPATCH working group.

(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.

  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 author confirmed that he won't be filing any IPR disclosures 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 proposition was seen as a fairly straightforward solution and
  there was a complete consensus on the subject.

(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.

  I have run the I-D through the ID nits tool and found no issues.

(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 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?

  The normative references are published 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 completely consistent with the
  body of the document. I confirm that all protocol extensions that
  the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations
  in IANA 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.

  None.

(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