Subject: Protocol Action: 'Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-15.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 06:16:02 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control'
  (draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-15.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the SIP Overload Control Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Richard Barnes and Alissa Cooper.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control/

Technical Summary:
    Overload occurs in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) networks when
    SIP servers have insufficient resources to handle all SIP messages
    they receive.  Even though the SIP protocol provides a limited
    overload control mechanism through its 503 (Service Unavailable)
    response code, SIP servers are still vulnerable to overload.  This
    document defines the protocol for communicating overload information
    between SIP servers and clients, so that clients can reduce the
    volume of traffic sent to overloaded servers, avoiding congestion
    collapse and increasing useful throughput.

Working Group Summary:

    This document was originally started by an ad-hoc Design Team within
    the SIPPING wg. The document was then adopted by the SIP  Overload
    Control WG once it has been created.
    There has been 13 versions of the document of the document since it
    has?been adopted as WG item, and the document has passed two
    WGLC?one in March 2012
    (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00731.html)
    and a second one in February 2013
    (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00911.html).
    All the issues and the feedback raised have been addressed, and the
    wg is now happy with the status.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

    I am not aware of any.

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement 
the specification?

    Yes, all the major vendors have indicated they have a plan to
    implement it.
    Moreover also 3GPP is supporting it and it will be referenced in its
    spec.

Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a 
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a 
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course 
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the 
request posted?

    No

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd?

    Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>