PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-04

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 are three normative reference that are not yet published as RFCs:  

[9]   Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., and C. Huitema, "Traversal Using Relay
         NAT (TURN)", draft-ietf-behave-turn-01 (work in progress),
         February 2006.

[10]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
         Methodology for  Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
         Offer/Answer Protocols", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-08 (work in
         progress), March 2006.

[11]  Camarillo, G. and O. Novo, "Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN)
         Extension for IPv4/IPv6  Transition",
         draft-ietf-behave-turn-ipv6-00 (work in progress).

These documents have not yet undergone IESG review, however they are high priority work items, so their publication should not introduce too large 
of a delay into the publication timeframe for this document.  Also, the references to these other documents is  at a very high level, thus detailed changes in those documents should not impact the content of this document. 

There are no normative references which are downward references.  

------

Protocol write-up for: draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-04
by Mary Barnes, mary.barnes@nortel.com, 19 Sept 2006

Technical Summary

   This document describes how IPv4 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
   user agents can communicate with IPv6 SIP user agents (and vice
   versa) at the signaling layer as well as exchange media once the
   session has been successfully set up.  Both single- and dual-stack
  (i.e., an IPv4-only and an IPv4/IPv6) user agents are considered.


Working Group Summary

   The SIPPING WG supports the development and advancement of this document.  
   In addition, this document updates RFC 3264, which was developed in the
   MMUSIC WG.  However, the MMUSIC chairs have agreed to the completion of
   this work within the SIPPING WG. 
          
Protocol Quality

   This document defines a normative update to the processing described in 
   RFC 3264.  It does not introduce any new protocol elements.  This 
   normative processing is clearly defined in section 4.1. 

   This document was thoroughly reviewed by WG chairs and WG members,   
   including those with expertise in IPv4 to IPv6 transitions and 
   interworking.  

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