idnits 2.17.1 draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-03.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 (March 11, 2016) is 2967 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) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3427 (Obsoleted by RFC 5727) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 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: September 12, 2016 B. Leiba 7 Huawei 8 March 11, 2016 10 DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP-Change Process 11 draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-03 13 Abstract 15 RFC 5727 defined several processes for the former Real-time 16 Applications and Infrastructure (RAI) area. These processes include 17 the evolution of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and related 18 protocols, as well as the operation of the DISPATCH and SIPCORE 19 working groups. This document updates RFC 5727 to allow flexibility 20 for the area and working group structure, while preserving the SIP- 21 change processes. It also generalizes the DISPATCH working group 22 processes so that they 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 September 12, 2016. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 1. Introduction 71 [RFC5727] described processes for evolving and maintaining the 72 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] and related technologies 73 in the former Real-time Application and Infrastructure (RAI) area. 74 These processes are collectively known as the "SIP-Change Process". 75 While areas do not normally have "charters" per se, RFC 5727 76 effectively served as a charter for RAI. The language in RFC 5727 77 was tightly bound to the RAI area and to the the DISPATCH and SIPCORE 78 working groups. 80 in 2015, The RAI area merged with the Applications (APP) area to form 81 the Applications and Real-Time (ART) area. This document updates RFC 82 5727 to remove its dependency on RAI and its working group structure. 83 The updates in this document do not depend on the names of the new 84 area, or any specific working group. Rather, the authors seek to 85 future-proof the SIP-Change Process against future reorganizations. 87 RFC 5727 specified that the DISPATCH working group assesses potential 88 new work for the area, and determines where such work should occur. 89 DISPATCH does not itself take on such new work. The SIPCORE working 90 group is responsible for maintenance of SIP. Other historically RAI 91 area working groups develop extensions to SIP that do not change the 92 core protocol, new applications of SIP, and other technologies for 93 interactive communication among humans. This document further 94 generalizes the processes of the DISPATCH working group so that they 95 can be applied to other areas, or to clusters of technologies within 96 an area. 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 historically RAI protocols 101 remain the same, until such time that they are updated by future 102 documents. 104 2. Dispatch-Style Working Groups 106 The DISPATCH working group has proven successful at managing new work 107 for the RAI and ART areas. Areas may choose to adopt DISPATCH-like 108 procedures, either for an entire area, or for technology clusters in 109 an area or across areas. A "Dispatch-Style" working group operates 110 according to procedures similar to those used for DISPATCH. 112 This document is not intended to recommend dispatch-style groups for 113 any specific IETF area other than ART. Different areas have 114 different needs, and those needs may change over time. It is up to 115 the community and respective Area Directors to determine if a 116 dispatch-style group is appropriate for any given situation. 118 The "Dispatch Style" includes the following essential elements: 120 o The working group evaluates proposals for new work for an area, or 121 for a well-defined technology cluster. It acts as a filter for 122 the area or cluster to determine whether a proposal is a 123 reasonable use of or addition to associated technologies. This 124 determination may depend upon established criteria (for example, 125 the SIP-Change Process), the experience and expertise of the 126 participants, or a combination of the two. 128 o The dispatch-style working group determines an appropriate venue 129 for the work. The venue could be an existing working group. If 130 no appropriate group exists, it may develop a charter for a BoF, a 131 new working group, or an exploratory group [RFC5111]. The group 132 might also recommend that a proposal progress as an AD-sponsored 133 individual draft, or even that a proposal should not be acted upon 134 at the time. 136 o The dispatch-style working group does not complete the proposed 137 work. It may, however, adopt milestones needed to properly 138 dispatch the work. For example, it may produce charter text for a 139 BoF or a new working group, an initial problem statement, or 140 documentation about why certain work was not pursued. 142 Nothing in this list prevents existing working groups from directly 143 adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters, nor does it 144 prevent new-work proposals from going directly to BoF meetings when 145 appropriate. For borderline cases, the decision whether new work 146 should start in a dispatch-style group or elsewhere is made by the 147 responsible Area Directors and chairs. Likewise, in cases where an 148 area has multiple dispatch-style groups for different purposes or 149 technology clusters, deciding which group will handle a particular 150 proposal is up to the responsible Area Directors and relevant chairs. 152 The charter of a dispatch-style group should make that fact clear, 153 either by referencing this document, or by directly describing 154 similar procedures. 156 3. Decoupling the SIP-Change Process from the RAI Area 158 This document clarifies that the SIP-Change Process is not bound to 159 any particular area or working group structure. All references to 160 the RAI area in RFC 5727 should be interpreted as "the cluster of SIP 161 and closely related application and infrastructure technologies, as 162 well as other technologies designed primarily for interactive 163 communication, historically among humans." 165 While the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups are expected to 166 continue in their current capacities, nothing in the SIP-Change 167 Process prevents their responsibilities from being assigned to other 168 working groups in the future. 170 All other aspects of the SIP-Change process are to continue as 171 described in RFC 5727. 173 4. IANA Considerations 175 This document makes no requests to IANA. 177 5. Security Considerations 179 This document discusses the roles and responsibilities of areas and 180 working groups. It does not create new security considerations in 181 the conventional sense. 183 However, organizational structures come with their own security 184 considerations. A dispatch-stye working group has the potential to 185 concentrate the control of work for an area or cluster in the hands 186 of a much smaller set of people than those in the whole area or 187 cluster. This could effectively create bottlenecks or roadblocks for 188 new work in an area or cluster. Likewise, such a concentration could 189 reduce the quality of decisions about new work. Care must be taken 190 to avoid this risk. The best mitigation is active participation in 191 the group by as many people in the area or cluster as possible. 193 6. Acknowledgements 195 The authors would like to thank all the previous authors of the SIP- 196 Change Process for their contributions. Jon Peterson, Cullen 197 Jennings, and Robert Sparks authored RFC 5727. That RFC obsoleted 198 [RFC3427], which was in turn written by Allison Mankin, Scott 199 Bradner, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis, Brian Rosen, and Joerg Ott. 201 The authors additionally thank the present and past chairs of 202 DISPATCH and SIPCORE, as well as all the participants in the former 203 RAI area since its inception. 205 7. References 207 7.1. Normative References 209 [RFC5727] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process 210 for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real- 211 time Applications and Infrastructure Area", BCP 67, 212 RFC 5727, DOI 10.17487/RFC5727, March 2010, 213 . 215 7.2. Informative References 217 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 218 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 219 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 220 DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, 221 . 223 [RFC3427] Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J., 224 and B. Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation 225 Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3427, DOI 10.17487/RFC3427, December 226 2002, . 228 [RFC5111] Aboba, B. and L. Dondeti, "Experiment in Exploratory Group 229 Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force 230 (IETF)", RFC 5111, DOI 10.17487/RFC5111, January 2008, 231 . 233 Authors' Addresses 235 Ben Campbell (editor) 236 Oracle 238 Email: ben@nostrum.com 239 ALissa Cooper 240 Cisco 242 Email: alcoop@cisco.com 244 Barry Leiba 245 Huawei 247 Email: barryleiba@computer.org