IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Parameters" registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters

sub-registry "Response Codes"

Response Code Reference
------------- ---------
433 Anonymity Disallowed [RFC-sip-acr-code-05]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action
for this document.

[Ballot comment]
Section 3., paragraph 1:
>    A server (generally acting on behalf of the called party, though this
>    need not be the case) MAY generate a 433 (Anonymity Disallowed)
>    response when it receives an anonymous request, and the server
>    refuses to fulfill the request because the requestor is anonymous.

  There should be a statement somewhere in this section that a 443
  SHOULD NOT (or MUST NOT?) be generated in response to other requests.

[Ballot comment]
Should the interoperability with the PSTN be described in more detail or made part of the requirements for PSTN/SIP gateways?

I note that the reference to RFC 3325 is on the edge of being a normative reference, because that's where the 'id' privacy type is defined.

[Note]: 'The document shepherd is Dean Willis. Note IETF LC ends the day of the call.  Cullen will hold discuss on waiting for LC comments.' added by Cullen Jennings

The SIP working group would like to request publication of draft-ietf-sip-acr-code-04. This document is intended for publication as a Proposed Standard, and is chartered work-product of the SIP working group.

A PROTO writeup follows:


  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Dean Willis, co-chair of the SIP working group. He has personally reviewed this document and believes this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.



  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has had adequate review from within the working group and was reviewed externally by members of ETSI TISPAN who established the requirements met by this document. It is a fairly straightforward SIP extension and should not require a great deal of review.


  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.


  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

One potentially questionable aspect of this document is that it makes a normative reference to the privacy functions defined in the informational RFC 3325. While informational, this RFC is the basis of the privacy mechanism in the current IMS specifications referenced by 3GPP and ETSI TISPAN. The reference is structured to say that "If you are using the privacy mechanisms defined in RFC 3325, then . . . " rather than recommending the RFC 3325 mechanism as a baseline. I believe this to be a reasonable down-reference.


  (1.e)  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?

The WG consensus is that the approach specified in this document is both reasonable and obvious.



  (1.f)  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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
No.


  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The shepherd processed the document through the current version of idnits (2.03.9). This check noted the down-reference to RFC 3325 discussed above, and one minor formatting error (a doubled space in the title of a reference) that isn't worth revising the document to address. There are no know formal review criteria applicable to this document.

The document is also lacking an "Intended Status" line in the front matter. The intended status of this document is "Proposed Standard".


  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

See discussion under 1.d above.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section appears to be reasonable. It defines one new SIP response code to be placed in the existing sip-parameters registry.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

There are no document sections written in a formal language.


  (1.k)  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 an extension to the Session Initiation Protocol providing a new response code that may be used to reject an anonymous request so that the requesting party can understand that the request was rejected because it was made anonymously and could reasonably be expected to succeed if retried without anonymity.


Working Group Summary

The requirement addressed by this document was identified by ETSI TISPAN. The SIPPING working group discussed the requirement and determined that a SIP extension would be required to address that requirement. The technique specified by this document was originally introduced in an individual document submitted by Jonathan Rosenberg and discussed in the SIP working group. The SIP working group rapidly achieved consensus on the approach and recommended establishing a working group milestone for this work. There was no controversy within the SIP working group on the direction of this work.


Document Quality

This is a very simple extension to the SIP protocol. It is expected to be widely implemented in SIP systems interacting with the switched telephone networks of the world. Since it addresses requirements from ETSI TISPAN, participants from that organization were asked to review the specification and reported that it is suitable for their needs.


Personnel

The document shepherd is Dean Willis. The responsible area director is Cullen Jennings. No IANA expert, MIB doctor, or other specialized contributor is required.