Mary Barnes
2010-06-22 16:06:34 UTC
PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-13.txt
To be Published as: Best Current Practices
Prepared by: Mary Barnes (***@polycom.com) on 22 June 2010
(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. Five members (Francois Audet, Vijay Gurbani, Dan Wing, Ali
Keranen and Jerry Yin) of the WG have reviewed this document in
detail. In addition, area/cross-area reviews were done by Remi
Denis-Courmant (BEHAVE) and Philip Matthews (RAI area). Note, that
Francois Audet was later added as a co-author.
There are no concerns over the depth or breadth of the reviews.
Since the publication of the most recent version (well past WGLC), additional
editorial nits have been identified on the WG mailing list. However, those can
be easily accommodated along with AD and IETF LC call comments and in some cases
are more appropriately handled by the RFC editor (e.g., consistency of terms).
(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 2.12.04. There
are some nits with regards to IPv4 addresses, but the values are
intentional. The miscellaneous nits are not applicable/innocuous.
(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 are no downward
references. There
is one normative reference that has not yet been published -
draft-ietf-sip-connect reuse. However, that document is currently in AUTH48.
(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 reflecting that this
document has no IANA considerations.
(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?
There are no sections written in a formal language requiring validation.
(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
Traversal of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the
sessions it establishes through Network Address Translators
(NATs) is a complex problem. Currently there are many deployment
scenarios and traversal mechanisms for media traffic.
This document aims to provide concrete recommendations and
a unified method for NAT traversal as well as documenting
corresponding flows.
Working Group Summary
The SIPPING WG supports the development and advancement of
this document.
Document Quality
This document defines no new protocol elements.
The document was thoroughly reviewed within the SIPPING WG.
Francois Audet, Vijay Gurbani, Dan Wing, Ali Keranen and
Jerry Yin provided detailed WG reviews of the document.
In addition, area/cross-area reviews were done by
Remi Denis-Courmant (BEHAVE/TSV area) and Philip Matthews
(RAI area).
Dan Wing provided a final review ensuring that the technical
details align with the more recently published BEHAVE WG
documents (e.g., TURN)
Personnel
Mary Barnes is the WG chair shepherd. Robert Sparks is the
responsible Area director.
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-***@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use ***@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
To be Published as: Best Current Practices
Prepared by: Mary Barnes (***@polycom.com) on 22 June 2010
(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. Five members (Francois Audet, Vijay Gurbani, Dan Wing, Ali
Keranen and Jerry Yin) of the WG have reviewed this document in
detail. In addition, area/cross-area reviews were done by Remi
Denis-Courmant (BEHAVE) and Philip Matthews (RAI area). Note, that
Francois Audet was later added as a co-author.
There are no concerns over the depth or breadth of the reviews.
Since the publication of the most recent version (well past WGLC), additional
editorial nits have been identified on the WG mailing list. However, those can
be easily accommodated along with AD and IETF LC call comments and in some cases
are more appropriately handled by the RFC editor (e.g., consistency of terms).
(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 2.12.04. There
are some nits with regards to IPv4 addresses, but the values are
intentional. The miscellaneous nits are not applicable/innocuous.
(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 are no downward
references. There
is one normative reference that has not yet been published -
draft-ietf-sip-connect reuse. However, that document is currently in AUTH48.
(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 reflecting that this
document has no IANA considerations.
(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?
There are no sections written in a formal language requiring validation.
(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
Traversal of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the
sessions it establishes through Network Address Translators
(NATs) is a complex problem. Currently there are many deployment
scenarios and traversal mechanisms for media traffic.
This document aims to provide concrete recommendations and
a unified method for NAT traversal as well as documenting
corresponding flows.
Working Group Summary
The SIPPING WG supports the development and advancement of
this document.
Document Quality
This document defines no new protocol elements.
The document was thoroughly reviewed within the SIPPING WG.
Francois Audet, Vijay Gurbani, Dan Wing, Ali Keranen and
Jerry Yin provided detailed WG reviews of the document.
In addition, area/cross-area reviews were done by
Remi Denis-Courmant (BEHAVE/TSV area) and Philip Matthews
(RAI area).
Dan Wing provided a final review ensuring that the technical
details align with the more recently published BEHAVE WG
documents (e.g., TURN)
Personnel
Mary Barnes is the WG chair shepherd. Robert Sparks is the
responsible Area director.
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-***@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use ***@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP