Subject: [Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-connected-identity-04

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:34:58 +0100

(As WG chair)

Draft-ietf-sip-identity-04 has just been submitted to the archive with
one very small punctuation change over the previous version. There were
no comments received on the previous version in regard to resolution of
the last open issue (where we agreed the intent at IETF#67).

I have requested the IESG to publish this document as a proposed
standard, which means that at some point in the future it will go
through IESG review and IESG last call.

The submitted PROTO writeup is as follows:

PROTO writeup for http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-
connected-identity-04.txt: "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation

Protocol (SIP)"

   (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?

Keith Drage

The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for 
publication.

   (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?

Document history:
*	draft-elwell-sip-connected-identity-00 was submitted October
2005 and 
expired April 2005.
*	draft-elwell-sip-connected-identity-01 was submitted 19th
February 
2006 and expired 23rd August 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-connected-identity-00 was submitted 26th April
2006 and 
expired 26th October 2006.
*	draft-ietf-sip-connected-identity-01 was submitted 8th August
2006 and 
expires 8th February 2007.
*	draft-ietf-sip-connected-identity-02 was submitted 6th October
2006 
and expires 6th April 2007.
*	draft-ietf-sip-connected-identity-03 was submitted 9th January
2007 
and expires 9th July 2007.
*	draft-ietf-sip-connected-identity-04 was submitted 17th January
2007 
and expires 21st July 1007.

WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-connected-identity-01
on 
4th September 2006 with comments requested by 18th September 2006.

Review was made and comments were received from: Cullen Jennings, Shida 
Schubert, Francois Audet, Paul Kyzivat, Sietse van der Gaast (with an 
indication that all had performed a full review of the draft. During the

course of the work comments have also been made by: Denis Alexeitsev,
Ilan 
Avner, Christer Holmberg, Frank Derks, Hans Person, Jonathan Rosenberg, 
Rocky Wang, Shida Schubert, Roland Jesske, Georg Mayer, Fredrik Thulin,
Bob 
Penfield, Mike Hammer, Jeroen van Bemmel, Jon Peterson, Hisham
Khartabil, 
Martin Dolly, Cullen Jennings, Paul Kyzivat, David Oran, Feng Cao, Henry

Sinnreich, Lavis Zhou, Dan Wing, Eric Rescorla.

There have been two key issues in the discussion that have been resolved
to 
the satisfaction of the SIP working group, but which are worth
mentioning 
here:

*	There was early discussion about whether the scope of the work
should 
be a complete solution to response identity, or whether it should just 
cover connected identity. During the discussions, it was identified 
that the complete solution to response identity was a near impossible 
problem to solve. There is no general solution to authenticating a 
response except in specific circumstances, i.e. when a TLS connection 
exists to the UAS. There is also an issue of whether the response is 
coming from a legitimate location, i.e. if the request had been 
retargetted. There was a draft-cao-sip-response-identity which was 
therefore not proceeded with.
*	The document allows the changing of the From header field in a
mid-
dialog request from that given in the initial request. There was 
discussion on whether changing the value was allowed and whether the 
lack of compatibility with the now obsoleted RFC 2543 was an issue. It 
was agreed that this compatibility issue had been adequately addressed 
when RFC 3261 was published. This has a corresponding impact on the To 
header field in the other direction. This does not relate to changing 
the To header field in a retargeted request.

   (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?

As a security related document, the document has been reviewed by Eric 
Rescorla (the security adviser to the SIP working group), and there are
no 
remaining unresolved issues.

   (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.

The document defines a new SIP protocol extension for a particular
purpose 
in a form that has been used for many other extensions. The document 
shepherd has no concerns with the document.

   (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?

The document has been well discussed by a significant number of members
of 
the working group (see answer in 1(b)).

   (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.)

None indicated.

   (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?

The document has been reviewed against the guidelines in RFC 4485 and it
is 
believed that the document is conformant with those guidelines.

While the document defines a new SIP option tag, these have been
performed 
as a SIP working group item, and therefore this draft is in conformance
with 
RFC 3427.

The document passes ID-NITS (idnits 1.123).

   (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 document has split its references into normative and informative 
references. All the normative and informative references are published
RFCs. 
All the normative references are standards track documents.

   (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?

Section 6 of the document registers a new option-tag; the new option-tag
is 
defined elsewhere in the document. This registration is consistent with
RFC 
3261 which defines the registry and is also consistent with the current 
format of the registry.

   (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 document contains no entries written in formal language. Section 5
of 
the document makes use of encoded keys within a SIP message body, and
these 
have been automatically generated using the same tools as for RFC 4474.

   (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

Because of retargeting of a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
dialog-forming 
request (changing the value of the Request-URI), the User Agent Server
(UAS) 
can have a different identity from that in the To header field.  This 
document provides a means for that User Agent (UA) to supply its
identity to 
the peer UA by means of a request in the reverse direction and for that 
identity to be signed by an Authentication Service.  The same mechanism
can 
be used to indicate a change of identity during a dialog, e.g., because
of 
some action in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) behind a
gateway.  
This document normatively updates RFC 3261 (SIP).

Working Group Summary

The document complements work already performed in RFC 4474 for 
authenticated request identity, and forms an integral part of the
chartered 
work in this area. There is consensus in the working group to publish
this 
document.

Document Quality

The document has been well discussed by a significant number of members
of 
the working group.

Personnel

Keith Drage is the document shepherd for this document. Cullen Jennings
is 
the responsible Area Director.

Regards

Keith

Keith Drage
[email-masked]
tel: +44 1793 776249

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip