PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ejzak-sipping-p-em-auth-03.txt prepared by: Gonzalo Camarillo [Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] on 2/2/2007 (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 shepherd is Gonzalo Camarillo. He has reviewed this draft and believes it is ready to be published as an Informational RFC. (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? This document defines a P-header. The SIP change process requires the SIPPING WG to conduct an expert review on this type of document. The expert was Aki Niemi. He believed the document was ready to be published. A few contributors in the working group did not agree with Aki's judgment, though. We had further discussions but people could not agree on whether or not defining this P-header was appropriate. At the end, there was rough consensus that this P-header should be published. (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, the shepherd does not have such concerns. (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. The shepherd does not have any specific concerns. (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? As indicated above, a few individuals did not think this P-header should be defined. However, the majority of the WG was happy with it. (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.) The responsible ADs are already aware of all the discussions around this document. (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? ID Nits 2.00.1 complains about the draft's references. However, after performing a manual check, the references seem to be OK. The shepherd has forwarded this draft together with its ID Nits output to the team developing the ID Nits tool so that they look into it. (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]. All the normative references are already published RFCs. (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 seems OK. (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? The document does not use 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 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. This document describes a private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) header (P-header) to be used by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Telecommunications and Internet converged Services and Protocols for Advanced Networks (TISPAN) for the purpose of authorizing early media flows in Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) IP Multimedia Subsystems (IMS). This header is useful in any SIP network that is interconnected with other SIP networks and needs to control the flow of media in the early dialog state. 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? Although some individual did not think this P-header should be defined, the majority of the working group thought it was OK to define it. 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? Aki Niemi performed an expert review on this document. Vendors implementing the architecture proposed by ETSI TISPAN will implement this P-header. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd. Jon Peterson is the responsible AD.