Subject: [martini] Draft PROTO writeup for MARTINI GIN Document

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:51:12 -0700

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-martini-gin

=================================================

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-martini-gin

   (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?

Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd.  I have personally reviewed

the document, and believe it is ready for publication as an Informational
RFC. 

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of

      the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd

      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that

      have been performed?

The document has been extensively discussed on the MARTINI WG mailing list.
The discussion has

included representatives from both the PBX and service-provider communities
as well as 

participants in SIP Forum.  As a result, the reviews appear to have been

reasonably thorough and representative. 

   (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 concerns. 

   (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has

      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail

      those concerns here.

No concerns.

   (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind

      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few

      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested

      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There appears to be strong consensus behind the document, which 

has been evaluated against the solution requirements (and appears 

to meet all of them). 

   (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?

IDNits are clean:

idnits 2.12.05 

tmp/draft-ietf-martini-gin-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (September 28, 2010) is 12 days in the past.  Is this

     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references

     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

     No issues found here.

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

   (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].

The references in the document have been split into normative and
informative. 

Normative references are all stable documents published as RFCs.

   (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See

      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

The IANA Considerations section exists (section 9).   The document

does not create a new registry or describe an Expert Review process. 

   (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?

Not applicable.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document

      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document

      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the

      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval

      announcement contains the following sections:

      Technical Summary

This document defines a mechanism by which a SIP server acting as a
traditional Private Branch Exchange (SIP-PBX) can register with a SIP
Service Provider (SSP) to receive phone calls for UAs designated by
phone numbers.  The mechanism requires that the multiple AoRs being 
registered are each globally unique, which is the case for fully qualified
AoRs representing E.164 numbers. 

      Working Group Summary

Since this document relates to the registration of multiple AoRs in
a single exchange, much of the discussion centered around the 
implications and limitations of the scheme.  In particular, there
was extensive discussion on potential requirements for globally
reachable contact URIs, as well as the circumstances under
which the multiple AoRs being registered would each be globally
unique.  Although the globally unique AoR requirement can be
met for email-style URIs as well as URIs representing E.164
numbers, this document chooses to focus on URIs representing
E.164 numbers only. 

      Document Quality

The document has been reviewed by participants within the IETF MARTINI WG,
including SIP

service providers as well as representatives from the PBX vendor community.
It has gone

through MARTINI WG last call. 

      Personnel

Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd for this document. 

Gonzalo Camarillo is the responsible AD.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:40:08 -0500

Bernard:

Before you send this off to Gonzalo, I think we still have an open issue 
in section 7.1.1:

  Open Issue: This section needs to call out the level of support
    required of GIN systems with regards to public GRUUs.  This issue is
    being resolved on the MARTINI mailing list.

I didn't see a formal announcement of consensus on this topic on the 
mailing list, although there was a lot of traffic around September 28th 
and 29th. I think the two contenders are basically: (1) "The SSP SHOULD 
support the public GRUU mechanism described in this section", or (2)  
"The SSP MUST support the public GRUU mechanism described in this 
section, unless the SSP has other means of providing globally routable 
contact URIs."

There were some fringe opinions that don't fit into either of these 
buckets, but (from what I can see on the mailing list), none of these 
opinions were held by more than one person.

I personally think option (2) is preferable, for the reasons I've 
explained earlier on the list.

/a

On 10/10/10 13:51, Oct 10, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> the document, and believe it is ready for publication as an 
> Informational RFC.
>
> The document has been extensively discussed on the MARTINI WG mailing 
> list.  The discussion has
>
> included representatives from both the PBX and service-provider 
> communities as well as
>
>   Checking nits according to 
> http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
>
>   
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The document has been reviewed by participants within the IETF MARTINI 
> WG, including SIP
>
> service providers as well as representatives from the PBX vendor 
> community.  It has gone
>
> _______________________________________________
> martini mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini