Indication of Conference Focus Support for the Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol (CCMP)
draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-07

[Ballot comment]
Is there an intention to retain Appendix A following publication?  It seems unnecessary, although I am sure it was useful during the lifetime of the document as an internet draft.

[Ballot discuss]
I am tightening up the text of my Discuss:

The shepherd write-up and datatracker say "Proposed Standard." The document was last called on the standards track.
The document header and says "Informational"

These need to be fixed to be consistent one way or another.

Personally, I would have expected the document to be standards track since it appears to describe interoperable procedures, but I understand that there is a "feeling" that there is no need for this to be a standards track document.

[Ballot comment]
It sounds like there was agreement to make this document Informational, but it is not reflected in the datatracker. Gonzalo: Please update.

2.1:

  The Call-Info header consists of two parts: a URI and a parameter.
  The purpose of the URI is to provide the XCON-URI of the conference
  focus, and the purpose of the parameter is to indicate that the
  conference focus supports CCMP.

Talking about "the purpose of the parameter", when the parameter *is* the "purpose parameter" is bound to be confusing. I suggest rewording to not use the word "purpose" here. How about just "The URI provides the XCOM-URI..., and the parameter indicates..."?

[Ballot discuss]
Echoing Pete's Discuss (don't you just hate it when someone raises your Discuss before you do?)

The shepherd write-up says...

> 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.  It is an extension to two Proposed Standards.

But the title page says:

> Intended Status: Informational

The datatracker says:

> Intended RFC status:  Proposed Standard

I would have expected the document to be standards track since it
appears to describe interoperable procedures.

Please clarify how we should be reviewing this and how the document
is positioned.

[Ballot comment]
It bugs me to see idnits and a write-up that says ...

> 11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>    document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
>
> None.

The nits may or may not be real. If they are: fix 'em. If not: explain
them.

---

Please be careful with acronyms.
CCAMP does not mean "Counter Mode with CBC-MAC Protocol" so you
need to be real clear what it does mean (not leaving me to guess the
very obvious Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol).
Also please expand other non-standard acronyms on first use.
You can check with
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt

---

I don't understand the scope or purpose of the Appendix. It describes
other options, but somehow at a lesser level than the two described in
the main body of text. Could you please add a note both at the forward
reference and in the Appendix to explain why the options are relegated
to an Appendix.

[Ballot discuss]
I hope this is a very short lived DISCUSS: The document has been Last Called and is on the agenda for Proposed Standard. But the header seems to have changed at -05 to be Informational. I hope that this *is* going for PS and not Info and that this was just an xml2rfc mistake.

[Ballot comment]
2.1:

  The Call-Info header consists of two parts: a URI and a parameter.
  The purpose of the URI is to provide the XCON-URI of the conference
  focus, and the purpose of the parameter is to indicate that the
  conference focus supports CCMP.

Talking about "the purpose of the parameter", when the parameter *is* the "purpose parameter" is bound to be confusing. I suggest rewording to not use the word "purpose" here. How about just "The URI provides the XCOM-URI..., and the parameter indicates..."?

[Ballot comment]
I had one comment you might want to consider:

In 1  Introduction

  This document
  describes two options to address the above limitation, depending on
  the need of the UA. The first option uses the Call-Info [RFC3261]
  header, and the second option defines a new value for the 'purpose'
  parameter in the 'service-uris' element in the SIP conferencing event
  package [RFC4575].

If I keep reading, I find out what the target audience is for both options, but the first clues I get are in 2.1 and 2.2, and both explanations are buried pretty deeply in those sections. Could you add something in the Introduction, or even in Section 2, that tells implementers which option they should look at first?

I agree  with the resolutions you've worked out with Barry on his Discuss and his Comments, so thank you for that, too.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 3 rather typically downplays possible security issues, so let's please take a closer look for a moment, and have a bit of discussion.  You don't have to define new headers or data elements to introduce security issues.  You're giving out information that wasn't given out before.  Is it possible that knowledge of this information could be used as a way to attack the conferencing system?  Could that information compromise the security or privacy of the system in any way?  That's what you should be addressing in the security considerations.  (If the answer is no, that's fine, but that's what you should say, because that's the change you're making here.)

[Ballot comment]
I've a few non-blocking comments, all editorial.  I think they'll make the document better, so please consider them.

The penultimate paragraph of the Introduction seems to bury the important point at the end of the paragraph.  I suggest splitting it, and starting a new paragraph with "This document describes", because that really starts a new thought, and is also the most important point in the Introduction.

Then you can probably merge the last, one-sentence paragraph into the end of that new one.

-- Section 2.1 --

  While the XCON-URI by itself should be enough to indicate that the
  conference focus supports CCMP, the purpose parameter with a value of
  'ccmp' provides an easier way for a UA, that does not use the
  conference event package, to discover that the conference focus
  supports CCMP, without parsing the URI.

The commas around "that does not use the conference event package" are wrong: they make that clause non-restrictive, which means that it could be removed without changing the sense of the sentence.  I believe it's restrictive, in that you're specifically targeting UAs that do not use the conference event package, and not those that do.  Remove the commas.

The two paragraphs that begin "This approach would" might benefit from an example after each, with the examples showing the client request and the server response.

  The pros of this approach is the ability to discover that a
  conference focus supports CCMP without subscribing to the XCON event
  package [RFC6502]. The cons is the need, in some cases, for an extra
  request, i.e. OPTIONS request, to discover that a conference focus
  supports CCMP.

"pros" and "cons" are plural, but you're using them with "is" and with a single "pro" and "con".  You could say "The pro" and "The con", but I'd prefer avoiding those particular colloquialisms and saying, "The advantage of this approach is", and "The disadvantage is".

-- Section 2.2 --

  The pros of this approach is the use of an existing mechanism for
  extending the  field of the  element in the
  conferencing event package [RFC4353]. The con is the requirement that
  the client subscribe for the conference event package.

The same comment applies here as in Section 2.1, about "pros" and "cons".  But I also suggest recasting the sentences to be more clearly active:

NEW
  The advantage of this approach is that it uses an existing mechanism
  for extending the  field of the  element in the
  conferencing event package [RFC4353]. The disadvantage is that it
  requires the client to subscribe to the conference event package.
END

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-04.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values subregistry of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry located at:

www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/sip-parameters.xml

the entry for the Header Field:

Header Field Parameter Name Predefined Values Reference
Call-Info purpose Yes [RFC3261][RFC5367][RFC6910][RFC-saintandre-impp-call-info-04]

is changed to:
Header Field Parameter Name Predefined Values Reference
Call-Info purpose Yes [RFC3261][RFC5367][RFC6910][ RFC-to-be ][RFC-saintandre-impp-call-info-04]

Second, in the URI Purposes subregistry of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry located at:

www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/sip-parameters.xml

a new URI purpose is to be added as follows:

Value: ccmp
Description: The URI can be used to indicate that the focus supports CCMP
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these are the only actions required upon approval
of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2013-07-16. 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.

Abstract


  The Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol document defines a
  way for a client to discover a conference control server that
  supports CCMP. However, it does not define a way for a client
  involved in a conference to determine if the conference focus
  supports CCMP. This information would allow a CCMP-enabled client
  that joins a conference using SIP to also register for the XCON
  conference event package RFC 4575 [RFC4575] and take advantage of
  CCMP operations on the conference.

  This document describes a few options to address the above limitation
  with the pros and cons for each approach, and recommends two to be
  used depending on the need of the UA. The first approach uses the
  Call-Info header and as a result this document updates RFC 3261
  [RFC3261]. The second approach defines a new value for the 'purpose'
  parameter in the 'service-uris' element in the SIP conferencing event
  package, and as a result this document updates RFC 4575 [RFC4575].





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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.  It is an extension to two Proposed Standards.

(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:

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?

Personnel:

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


Subject: Protocol Action: 'Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support' to Proposed Standard (draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-0x.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support' (draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-0x.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is not a product of any Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Richard Barnes.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yousef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-0x/



Technical Summary

This document defines two new mechanisms to allow a SIP User Agent to discover if a SIP conference focus (signaling control point for a conference) supports CCMP, Centralized Conferencing Manipulation Protocol.  One mechanism is a new parameter for the SIP Call-Info header field.  The other mechanism is a new service-uri parameter in the SIP conference event package.  The two methods are not mutually exclusive and can be used individually or together.

Working Group Summary

This document is not the product of a working group.  However, the work has been discussed in the XCON and DISPATCH working groups.

Document Quality

Some vendors have indicated their plan to implement the specification.

Personnel

Alan Johnston is the document shepherd and Gonzalo Camarillo is the responsible Area Director.


(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 shepherd has reviewed the short document for technical quality and completeness.  The document is ready to be considered by the IESG.


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

No.

(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 additional reviews are needed.

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

No additional 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?

Yes.

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

No.

(9) 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?

This document is not the product of a working group.  However, it has been discussed by a number of key contributors to the former XCON, DISPATCH, and SIPCORE working groups.

(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.

None.

(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 needed.

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

All references in the document are normative.

(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 WG considers it unnecessary.

Updates RFC 3261 and 4575.  These RFCs are listed in the header, abstract, and introduction.

(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 has one IANA considerations section, for the new SIP parameter 'purpose'.  There needs to be a second IANA considerations for URI purposes

The IANA considerations have been reviewed and are consistent with the rest of the document.

(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 the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The ABNF extensions to Call-Info have been reviewed.