PROTO questionnaire for:  draft-ietf-sipping-cc-transfer-08.txt

To be Published as: BCP

Prepared by:  Gonzalo Camarillo [Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com]
Date: 12/14/2007


  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
         Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
         to forward to the IESG for publication?

The SIPPING WG chairs have reviewed the document and believe it is ready for publication. Gonzalo Camarillo is its PROTO shepherd.

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

The draft has been thoroughly reviewed by a number of SIPPING members.

    1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
         particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
         complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

We do not have any particular concern in that respect.

    1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
         you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
         example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
         document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
         it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
         and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
         document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

We feel comfortable with the document.

    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?

There is strong consensus within the WG that call transfer is a very important service and that this is the best way to implement such a service.

    1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
         discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
         separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

Nobody has done anything to stop this document.

    1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
         ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Yes, it does.

    1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
         Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
         also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
         (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
         normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
         such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

All the normative references are RFCs. xxx GRUU is still a draft.

    1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
         announcement includes a write-up section with the following
         sections:

         *    Technical Summary

    This document describes providing Call Transfer capabilities in the
    Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).  SIP extensions such as REFER and
    Replaces are used to provide a number of transfer services including
    blind transfer, consultative transfer, and attended transfer.  This
    work is part of the SIP multiparty call control framework.

         *    Working Group Summary

This draft progressed slowly because it uses mechanisms defined in other documents. The document had to wait until those mechanisms were ready.
Otherwise, folks in the WG agreed with the direction of the draft from the beginning.

         *    Protocol Quality

Jon Peterson is the Responsible Area Director. The WG chair shepherd for the document is Gonzalo Camarillo.