Subject: [Sip] Publication request for draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:33:06 +0200

(As WG cochair)

A new version of this document has just been issued, which makes no
technical change but does tidy up some editorial issues that I
discovered while doing the publication request.

I intend to submit the publication request in 24 hours time with the
following PROTO writeup unless any further issues are discovered.

If anyone has any further implementation experience they would like to
share in particular, that would be useful information.

I am also currently preparing domain-certs, eku and session policy.
Information on implementation experience would be useful on those
documents.

Regards

Keith

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
PROTO writeup for
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12: 
"Connection Reuse 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.

Document history:

-	draft-mahy-sip-connect-reuse-00 was submitted 1st June 2003 and
expired 30th 
November 2003.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-00 was submitted 1st August 2003
and expired 30th 
January 2004.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-01 was submitted 1st February 2004
and expired 1st 
August 2004.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-02 was submitted 17th July 2004 and
expired 15th 
January 2005.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-03 was submitted 22nd October 2004
and expired 22nd 
April 2005.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-04 was submitted 14th July 2005 and
expired 15th 
January 2006.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-05 was submitted 5th February 2006
and expired 5th 
August 2006.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-06 was submitted 21st August 2006
and expired 22nd 
February 2007.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-07 was submitted 6th October 2006
and expired 9th 
April 2007.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-08 was submitted 16th October 2007
and expired 18th 
April 2008.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-09 was submitted 8th February 2008
and expires 11th 
August 2008.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-10 was submitted 13th May 2008 and
expires 14th 
November 2008.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-11 was submitted 14th July 2008 and
expires 15th 
January 2009.
-	draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-12 was submitted 22nd October 2008
and expires 25th 
April 2009.

There was a requirements phase of the work that was covered in:

-	draft-mahy-sipping-connect-reuse-reqs-00 was submitted 19th June
2002 and expired 
18th December 2002.
-	draft-ietf-sipping-connect-reuse-reqs-00 was submitted 1st
October 2002 and 
expired 1st April 2003.

These requirements were handed over to SIP without being published by
SIPPING. The 
requirements also formed the basis for progressing
draft-ietf-sip-outbound, the scope of 
which is separate from this document.

WGLC announced in the SIP WG on 26th October 2005 to complete 18th
November 2005 on -04 
version. WGLC continuation announced 23rd October 2007 to complete 6th
November 2007 on 
-08 version. Extended until 24th November 2007.

Review was made and comments were received from: Dale Worley, Hadriel
Kaplan, Jerry Yin. 
Paul Kyzivat participated in the discussion on the resolution of these
comments. Earlier 
reviews were made by Paul Kyzivat, Jonathan Rosenberg, Cullen Jennings,
Benny Prijono, 
Matthew Gardiner.

   (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?

The document has had adequate review from working group members. The
main issue with the 
extended timescale of this document has been separating the scope from
that of outbound, 
and identifying whether there was still a sufficient use case for
continuing with this 
document. While the community of use is small compared to outbound, it
is still 
significant and it was therefore agreed to proceed with the draft.

   (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?

The document defines mechanisms that are entirely internal to the
Session Initiation 
Protocol (SIP). The document shepherd considers that no external review
from an external 
specialist is necessary, apart from as follows.

The document has not had a separate security review, and that should
therefore occur.

   (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.

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.

There have been no IPR disclosures on this 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?

As already indicated, there are two solutions in this area fulfilling
two different use 
cases. draft-ietf-sip-outbound covers the majority of these use cases,
with a more 
limited community of support of the remaining use cases covered by this
draft. However a 
poll of the SIP WG showed that there was still a significant community
of interest to 
justify proceeding with the document.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

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 Via header field parameter, this has been
performed as a 
SIP working group item, and therefore this draft is in conformance with
RFC 3968.

For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.09.01 report no NITS found.

   (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 separate sections for normative and informative
references. The 
normative references have been checked and found to be normative.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document defines the following value that requires registration:

*	alias header field parameter to the Via header field.

Section 12 of the document provides the IANA considerations section, and
this defines 
the above.

   (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 defines one items in ABNF in section 7. These augment the
ABNF defined in 
RFC 3261.

The contents of this ABNF is have been checked in conjunction with the
ABNF defined in 
RFC 3261 by use of the checker defined in
http://www.apps.ietf.org/abnf.html and no 
faults have been found. 

   (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
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

          Working Group Summary
             Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
             For example, was there controversy about particular points
             or were there decisions where the consensus was
             particularly rough?

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?  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?

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
             experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
             in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Technical summary.

This document enables a pair of communicating proxies to reuse a
congestion-controlled 
connection between themselves for sending requests in the forward and
backwards 
direction.  Because the connection is essentially aliased for requests
going in the 
backwards direction, reuse should be predicated upon both the
communicating endpoints 
authenticating themselves using X.509 certificates through TLS.  For
this reason, we 
only consider connection reuse for TLS over TCP and TLS over SCTP.  A
single connection 
should not be reused for the TCP or SCTP transport between two peers,
and this document 
provides insight into why this is the case.  As a remedy, it suggests
using two TCP 
connections (or two SCTP associations), each opened pro-actively towards
the recipient 
by the sender.  Finally, this document also provides guidelines on
connection reuse and 
virtual SIP servers and the interaction of connection reuse and DNS SRV
lookups in SIP.

Working group summary.

There is consensus in the working group to publish this document. 

Document Quality

At SIPiT 18 there were recorded 6 implementations of connect-reuse. At
SIPiT 19 
there were recorded 27 implementations of connect-reuse (30% of 90 
implementations). This was the last SIPiT apparently polled for numbers
of 
implementations of this extension.

Personnel

The document shepherd for this document was Keith Drage. The responsible
Area Director 
was Cullen Jennings. The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this
document are <TO BE 
ADDED BY THE AD>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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