idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits22511/draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5727, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2008-02-18) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 25, 2015) is 2552 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC3261' is mentioned on line 207, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC5111' is mentioned on line 216, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC3427' is mentioned on line 212, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 3427 (Obsoleted by RFC 5727) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force B. Campbell, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Oracle 4 Updates: 5727 (if approved) A. Cooper 5 Intended status: Best Current Practice Cisco 6 Expires: November 26, 2015 B. Leiba 7 Huawei 8 May 25, 2015 10 Improving the Organizational Flexibility of the SIP Change Process. 11 draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-00 13 Abstract 15 RFC 5727 defines several processes for the Real-time Applications and 16 Infrastructure (RAI) area. These processes include the evolution of 17 the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and related protocols, as well 18 as the operation of the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups. This 19 document updates RFC 5727 to allow flexibility for the area and 20 working group structure, while preserving the SIP change processes. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2015. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Dispatch-Style Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3. Decoupling the SIP-Change Process from the RAI Area . . . . . 4 59 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 7.2. Informative Reverences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 1. Introduction 69 [RFC5727] describes processes for evolving and maintaining the 70 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] and related technologies 71 in the Real-time Application and Infrastructure (RAI) area. These 72 processes are collectively known as the "SIP Change Process". 74 At the time of this writing, the Internet Engineering Steering Group 75 (IESG) expects to reorganize the RAI area. While areas do not 76 normally have "charters" per se, RFC 5727 has effectively served as a 77 charter for RAI. The language in RFC 5727 is tightly bound to the 78 area and to the the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups. This 79 document updates RFC 5727 to remove its dependency on RAI and its 80 working group structure. 82 RFC 5727 specifies that the DISPATCH working group assesses potential 83 new work for the area, and determines where such work should occur. 84 DISPATCH does not itself take on such new work. The SIPCORE working 85 group is responsible for maintenance of SIP. Other RAI working 86 groups develop extensions to SIP that do not change the core 87 protocol, new applications of SIP, and other technologies for 88 interactive communication among humans. This document further 89 generalizes the processes of the DISPATCH working group so that they 90 can be applied to other areas, or to clusters of technologies within 91 an area. 93 While the reorganization is expected to involve merging RAI with the 94 Applications (APP) area and renaming the resulting area, the updates 95 in this document do not depend on that. Rather, the authors seek to 96 future-proof the SIP Change Process against future reorganizations. 98 This document does not change any other aspect of RFC 5727. While 99 areas and working groups may change over time, the rules and 100 procedures for changing SIP and other RAI protocols remain the same, 101 until such time that they are updated by future documents. 103 2. Dispatch-Style Working Groups 105 The DISPATCH working group has proven successful at managing new work 106 for the RAI area. Areas may choose to adopt DISPATCH-like 107 procedures, either for an entire area, or for technology-clusters in 108 an area or across areas. A "Dispatch-Style" working group operates 109 according to procedures similar to those used for DISPATCH. 111 The "Dispatch Style" includes the following essential elements: 113 o The working group evaluates proposals for new work for an area, or 114 for a well-defined technology cluster. It acts as a filter for 115 the area or cluster to determine whether a proposal is a 116 reasonable use of or addition to associated technologies. This 117 determination may depend upon established criteria (for example, 118 the SIP Change Process), the experience and expertise of the 119 participants, or a combination of the two. 121 o The dispatch-style working group determines an appropriate venue 122 for the work. The venue could be an existing working group. If 123 no appropriate group exist, it may develop a charter for a BoF, a 124 new working group, or an exploratory group [RFC5111]. The working 125 group may also determine that a proposal should not be acted upon 126 at the time. 128 o The working group does not complete the proposed work. It may, 129 however, adopt milestones needed to properly dispatch the work. 130 For example, it may produce charter text for a BoF or a new 131 working group, an initial problem statement, or documentation 132 about why certain work was not pursued. 134 Nothing in this list prevents existing working groups from directly 135 adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters. For 136 borderline cases, the decision whether new work should start in a 137 dispatch-style group, or in an existing group is a judgement call 138 among the responsible Area Directors and chairs. Likewise, in cases 139 where an area has multiple dispatch-style groups for different 140 purposes or technology clusters, the decision about which group will 141 handle a particular proposal is a judgement call. 143 The charter of a dispatch-style group should make that fact clear, 144 either by referencing this document, or by directly describing 145 similar procedures. 147 3. Decoupling the SIP-Change Process from the RAI Area 149 This document clarifies that the SIP Change Process is not bound to 150 any particular area or working group structure. All references to 151 the RAI area in RFC 5727 should be interpreted as "the cluster of SIP 152 and closely related application and infrastructure technologies, as 153 well as other technologies designed primarily for interactive 154 communication among humans." 156 While the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups are expected to 157 continue in their current capacities, nothing in the SIP Change 158 Process prevents their responsibilities from being assigned to other 159 working groups in the future. 161 All other aspects of the SIP-Change process are to continue as 162 described in RFC 5727. 164 4. IANA Considerations 166 This document makes no requests to IANA. 168 5. Security Considerations 170 This document discusses the roles and responsibilities of areas and 171 working groups. It does not create new security considerations in 172 the conventional sense. 174 However, organizational structures come with their own security 175 considerations. A dispatch-stye working group has the potential to 176 concentrate the control of work for an area or cluster in the hands 177 of a small number of people. This could have the effect of a "Denial 178 of Service Attack" against the area or cluster. Likewise, such a 179 concentration could reduce the quality of decisions about new work. 180 Care must be taken to avoid this risk. While this responsibility 181 lies primarily with the relevant Area Directors, all participants 182 must play a roll. 184 6. Acknowledgements 186 The authors would like to thank all the previous authors of the SIP 187 Change Process for their contributions. Jon Peterson, Cullen 188 Jennings, and Robert Sparks authored RFC 5727. That RFC obsoleted 189 [RFC3427], which was in turn written by Allison Mankin, Scott 190 Bradner, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis, Brian Rosen, and Joerg Ott. 192 The authors additionally thank the present and past chairs of 193 DISPATCH and SIPCORE, as well as all the participants in the RAI area 194 since its inception. 196 7. References 198 7.1. Normative References 200 [RFC5727] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process 201 for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real- 202 time Applications and Infrastructure Area", BCP 67, RFC 203 5727, March 2010. 205 7.2. Informative Reverences 207 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 208 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 209 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 210 June 2002. 212 [RFC3427] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J., 213 and B. Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation 214 Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3427, December 2002. 216 [RFC5111] Aboba, B. and L. Dondeti, "Experiment in Exploratory Group 217 Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force 218 (IETF)", RFC 5111, January 2008. 220 Authors' Addresses 222 Ben Campbell (editor) 223 Oracle 225 Email: ben@nostrum.com 227 ALissa Cooper 228 Cisco 230 Email: alcoop@cisco.com 232 Barry Leiba 233 Huawei 235 Email: barryleiba@computer.org