PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-sipping-policy-package-04 To be Published as: Proposed Standard Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com) on 09 January 2008 (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? Mary Barnes is the document shepherd. She has reviewed this version of the document and believes it is ready. (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? Yes, the document has been adequately reviewed. Roni Even thoroughly reviewed several versions of the document, including during WGLC. Bob Penfield and Shida Schubert reviewed earlier versions of this document. There are no concerns over the depth or breadth of the reviews. (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. There are no specific concerns or issues. There is no IPR disclosure. (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 WG consensus behind this document and no one 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 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? Yes. The draft has been validated for nits using idnits 2.05.03 (the warnings are related to other docs/versions). (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]. Yes, the document references are split. There is a normative reference to a SIP WG document (draft-ietf-sip-session-policy-framework) which has already completed WGLC and should be progressed soon. There is one other normative reference to a SIPPING WG document that has completed WGLC (draft-ietf-sipping-media-policy-dataset), which is awaiting completion of a newly agreed WG document (draft-ietf-sipping-profile-dataset based on draft-petrie-sipping-profile-dataset) to ensure the accuracy of the X ML schema. The latter document is a high priority work item for WG completion. (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? Yes, there is an appropriate IANA section with the necessary registrations defined for a new SIP event package. (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 event package is defined according to the requirements in RFC 3265. (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 specification defines a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) event package for session-specific policies. This event package enables user agents to subscribe to session policies for a SIP session and to receive notifications if these policies change. Working Group Summary The SIPPING WG supports the development and advancement of this document. Document Quality This document defines a new SIP event package following the procedure defined in RFC 3265. The document was thoroughly reviewed within the SIPPING WG. Roni Even provided a detailed review during and post WGLC. Personnel Mary Barnes is the WG chair shepherd. Jon Peterson is the responsible Area director.