PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-sipping-gruu-reg-event-05
prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com)

   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?  Which chair is the WG
        Chair Shepherd for this document?

Yes, the WG chairs have reviewed and believe the ID is ready.  
Mary Barnes is the WG Chair Shepherd for this document. 

   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 document has been reviewed by WG members, with no concerns about the
depth or breadth of the review. 

   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, internationalization,
        XML, etc.)?

No. 

   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.

No.

   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 WG consensus behind this document and no one that has
expressed concerns about its progression.  

   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.  (It should be
        separate email because this questionnaire will be entered into
        the tracker).
No. 

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document checks out against
        all the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
        Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
        thorough.

Yes. 

   1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?  Are there normative references to IDs, where the
        IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an
        unclear state?  The RFC Editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs (will delay the publication until
        all such IDs are also ready for RFC publicatioin).  If the
        normative references are behind, what is the strategy for their
        completion?  On a related matter, are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in BCP 97, RFC 3967
        RFC 3967 [RFC3967]?  Listing these supports the Area Director in
        the Last Call downref procedure specified in RFC 3967.

The references are split into normative and informative.  There is one
normative reference that must be progressed prior to publication of this
document, draft-ietf-sip-gruu-xx (currently -06).  The -07 version is
anticipated to be the version to be progressed and it is a high priority
to get that completed as there are many dependencies on that document.
There are no normative references which are downward references.  

------

Protocol write-up for: draft-ietf-sipping-gruu-reg-event-05
by Mary Barnes, mary.barnes@nortel.com, 28 April 2006

Technical Summary

   This document defines an extension to the Session Initiation Protocol(SIP) 
   Event Package for Registration (RFC 3680) for representing the Globally 
   Routable Unique URI (GRUU) associated with a Contact.  The addition of GRUU 
   support to the REGISTER message, introduces another element of state to 
   the registrar.  Subscribers to the registration event package will       sometimes have need for the new state. 


Working Group Summary

   The SIPPING WG supports the development and advancement of this
   document.
       
   In the context of this document, there was discussion around
   enhancing the Registration Event Package for other information, but 
   that was deemed beyond the scope of this draft, which is explicitly
   intended to extend the Registration Event Package to support GRUUs. 

   
Protocol Quality

   This document defines no new protocol elements, but rather uses the 
   existing extensibility mechanism defined in RFC 3680 to add an
   extension to support GRUUs. 

   This document was thoroughly reviewed by WG chairs and WG members,    
   including those with XML expertise.  

   Mary Barnes is the WG chair shepherd. Jon Peterson is the responsible Area 
   director.