idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits23574/draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-01.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 29, 2015) is 2548 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 209, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC5111' is mentioned on line 218, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC3427' is mentioned on line 214, 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 30, 2015 B. Leiba 7 Huawei 8 May 29, 2015 10 Improving the Organizational Flexibility of the SIP Change Process. 11 draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-01 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. 21 It also generalizes the DISPATCH working group processes so that they 22 can be easily adopted by other working groups. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2015. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Dispatch-Style Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. Decoupling the SIP-Change Process from the RAI Area . . . . . 4 61 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 7.2. Informative Reverences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 1. Introduction 71 [RFC5727] describes processes for evolving and maintaining the 72 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] and related technologies 73 in the Real-time Application and Infrastructure (RAI) area. These 74 processes are collectively known as the "SIP Change Process". 76 At the time of this writing, the Internet Engineering Steering Group 77 (IESG) expects to reorganize the RAI area. While areas do not 78 normally have "charters" per se, RFC 5727 has effectively served as a 79 charter for RAI. The language in RFC 5727 is tightly bound to the 80 area and to the the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups. This 81 document updates RFC 5727 to remove its dependency on RAI and its 82 working group structure. 84 RFC 5727 specifies that the DISPATCH working group assesses potential 85 new work for the area, and determines where such work should occur. 86 DISPATCH does not itself take on such new work. The SIPCORE working 87 group is responsible for maintenance of SIP. Other RAI working 88 groups develop extensions to SIP that do not change the core 89 protocol, new applications of SIP, and other technologies for 90 interactive communication among humans. This document further 91 generalizes the processes of the DISPATCH working group so that they 92 can be applied to other areas, or to clusters of technologies within 93 an area. 95 While the reorganization is expected to involve merging RAI with the 96 Applications (APP) area and renaming the resulting area, the updates 97 in this document do not depend on that. Rather, the authors seek to 98 future-proof the SIP Change Process against future reorganizations. 100 This document does not change any other aspect of RFC 5727. While 101 areas and working groups may change over time, the rules and 102 procedures for changing SIP and other RAI protocols remain the same, 103 until such time that they are updated by future documents. 105 2. Dispatch-Style Working Groups 107 The DISPATCH working group has proven successful at managing new work 108 for the RAI area. Areas may choose to adopt DISPATCH-like 109 procedures, either for an entire area, or for technology-clusters in 110 an area or across areas. A "Dispatch-Style" working group operates 111 according to procedures similar to those used for DISPATCH. 113 The "Dispatch Style" includes the following essential elements: 115 o The working group evaluates proposals for new work for an area, or 116 for a well-defined technology cluster. It acts as a filter for 117 the area or cluster to determine whether a proposal is a 118 reasonable use of or addition to associated technologies. This 119 determination may depend upon established criteria (for example, 120 the SIP Change Process), the experience and expertise of the 121 participants, or a combination of the two. 123 o The dispatch-style working group determines an appropriate venue 124 for the work. The venue could be an existing working group. If 125 no appropriate group exist, it may develop a charter for a BoF, a 126 new working group, or an exploratory group [RFC5111]. The working 127 group may also determine that a proposal should not be acted upon 128 at the time. 130 o The dispatch-style working group does not complete the proposed 131 work. It may, however, adopt milestones needed to properly 132 dispatch the work. For example, it may produce charter text for a 133 BoF or a new working group, an initial problem statement, or 134 documentation about why certain work was not pursued. 136 Nothing in this list prevents existing working groups from directly 137 adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters. For 138 borderline cases, the decision whether new work should start in a 139 dispatch-style group, or in an existing group is a judgement call 140 among the responsible Area Directors and chairs. Likewise, in cases 141 where an area has multiple dispatch-style groups for different 142 purposes or technology clusters, the decision about which group will 143 handle a particular proposal is a judgement call. 145 The charter of a dispatch-style group should make that fact clear, 146 either by referencing this document, or by directly describing 147 similar procedures. 149 3. Decoupling the SIP-Change Process from the RAI Area 151 This document clarifies that the SIP Change Process is not bound to 152 any particular area or working group structure. All references to 153 the RAI area in RFC 5727 should be interpreted as "the cluster of SIP 154 and closely related application and infrastructure technologies, as 155 well as other technologies designed primarily for interactive 156 communication among humans." 158 While the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups are expected to 159 continue in their current capacities, nothing in the SIP Change 160 Process prevents their responsibilities from being assigned to other 161 working groups in the future. 163 All other aspects of the SIP-Change process are to continue as 164 described in RFC 5727. 166 4. IANA Considerations 168 This document makes no requests to IANA. 170 5. Security Considerations 172 This document discusses the roles and responsibilities of areas and 173 working groups. It does not create new security considerations in 174 the conventional sense. 176 However, organizational structures come with their own security 177 considerations. A dispatch-stye working group has the potential to 178 concentrate the control of work for an area or cluster in the hands 179 of a much smaller set of people than those in the whole area or 180 cluster. This could have the effect of a "Denial of Service Attack" 181 against the area or cluster. Likewise, such a concentration could 182 reduce the quality of decisions about new work. Care must be taken 183 to avoid this risk. The best mitigation is active participation in 184 the group by as many people in the area or cluster as possible. 186 6. Acknowledgements 188 The authors would like to thank all the previous authors of the SIP 189 Change Process for their contributions. Jon Peterson, Cullen 190 Jennings, and Robert Sparks authored RFC 5727. That RFC obsoleted 191 [RFC3427], which was in turn written by Allison Mankin, Scott 192 Bradner, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis, Brian Rosen, and Joerg Ott. 194 The authors additionally thank the present and past chairs of 195 DISPATCH and SIPCORE, as well as all the participants in the RAI area 196 since its inception. 198 7. References 200 7.1. Normative References 202 [RFC5727] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process 203 for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real- 204 time Applications and Infrastructure Area", BCP 67, RFC 205 5727, March 2010. 207 7.2. Informative Reverences 209 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 210 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 211 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 212 June 2002. 214 [RFC3427] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J., 215 and B. Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation 216 Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3427, December 2002. 218 [RFC5111] Aboba, B. and L. Dondeti, "Experiment in Exploratory Group 219 Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force 220 (IETF)", RFC 5111, January 2008. 222 Authors' Addresses 224 Ben Campbell (editor) 225 Oracle 227 Email: ben@nostrum.com 229 ALissa Cooper 230 Cisco 232 Email: alcoop@cisco.com 234 Barry Leiba 235 Huawei 237 Email: barryleiba@computer.org