Subject: [Iptel] loooonnnnnggggg overdue proto writeup on tel-reg

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:51:38 -0500

The WGLC call for draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg ended in March 2006. Since 
that time, I've held the token to verify that all comments were 
incorporated, and then do a proto writeup of the specification. I have 
finally done that. The proto writeup is included below. I will now send 
this off to IESG for consideration as PS.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?  Which chair is the WG
        Chair Shepherd for this document?

Yes, the chair (Jonathan Rosenberg) has personally reviewed this
version of the document. The chair believes the I-D is ready to
forward for publication. The sole chair is the shepherd.

 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has not had a deep review from WG members besides the
chair, who conducted an extremely detailed review. This is a very
simple draft that is largely procedural. WG discussion around this
draft had active participation from many key participants,
including the authors of the various tel URI extensions whose
parameters are registered by this draft. Given the simple nature of
the document, the level of involvement on the list, and the good
expertise of the chair on IANA procedures, I have no concern over
either the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

The document has not had a review from outside of the working group.

1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization,
        XML, etc.)?

No. The document needs reviews from experts in telephony and IANA
procedures, and it has had those.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

There was some discussion about whether this document was really
needed. It is possible to go too far in the creation of IANA
registries, creating unneccesary work. However, a poll was taken and
there was consensus that this was a good idea.

  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?

Working group consensus is good. The draft was originally posted in
October 2005. After that point, there was discussion around its need,
and conclusion that it was needed. It was made a WG item in December of
2005 and then underwent several revisions based on comments and
inputs. The group is small, but there was participation by all of the
active members.

 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.  (It should be
        separate email because this questionnaire will be entered into
        the tracker).

No.

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document checks out against
        all the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
        Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
        thorough.

Yes.

  1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? 

Yes.

        Are there normative references to IDs, where the
        IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an
        unclear state? 

No. There are references to I-Ds, but two have already been published
as an RFC, and the other is currently under IESG evaluation.

        The RFC Editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs (will delay the publication until
        all such IDs are also ready for RFC publicatioin).  If the
        normative references are behind, what is the strategy for their
        completion?  On a related matter, are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in BCP 97, RFC 3967
        RFC 3967 [RFC3967]? 

No.

        Listing these supports the Area Director in
        the Last Call downref procedure specified in RFC 3967.

   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

This document is a procedural specification that defines a new IANA
registry for parameters to the tel URI (RFC 3966). RFC 3966 allowed
extensions to the tel URI through new URI parameters, or new values to
previously defined parameters. However, it created no registry for
such parameters. Several extensions have since been defined for the
tel URI, including trunk groups (draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group), number
portability (RFC 4694) and ENUM dip indicator (RFC 4759). Additional
drafts have appeared proposing further extensions. To ensure that
there are no overlap of values, and to provide a simple place for
developers to find the meaning of these new parameters, this document
defines an IANA registry and populates it with values from the
existing specifications that pre-date the creation of the registry. 

        *    Working Group Summary

The draft is a charter item of the IP Telephony (iptel) working group,
and is targeted for Proposed Standard. It updates the tel URI
specification (RFC 3966) as well as several tel URI extensions. It was
adopted as a working group item in December 2005 and discussed on the
mailing list since its creation. 

        *    Protocol Quality

The specification has received discussion by all of the authors of the
specifications whose parameters are registered. It has also received
review by an expert in IANA registry procedures.
_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel