GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7957

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Campbell, Ed. Request for Comments: 7957 Oracle BCP: 67 A. Cooper Updates: 5727 Cisco Category: Best Current Practice B. Leiba ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei Technologies

                                                           August 2016
      DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP Change Process

Abstract

 RFC 5727 defined several processes for the former Real-time
 Applications and Infrastructure (RAI) area.  These processes include
 the evolution of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and related
 protocols, as well as the operation of the DISPATCH and SIPCORE
 working groups.  This document updates RFC 5727 to allow flexibility
 for the area and working group structure, while preserving the SIP
 change processes.  It also generalizes the DISPATCH working group
 processes so that they can be easily adopted by other working groups.

Status of This Memo

 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7957.

Campbell, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 7957 Update to SIP Change Process August 2016

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
 2.  DISPATCH-Style Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 3.  Decoupling the SIP Change Process from the RAI Area . . . . .   4
 4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1. Introduction

 [RFC5727] described processes for evolving and maintaining the
 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] and related technologies
 in the former Real-time Application and Infrastructure (RAI) area.
 These processes are collectively known as the "SIP Change Process".
 While areas do not normally have "charters" per se, RFC 5727
 effectively served as a charter for RAI.  The language in RFC 5727
 was tightly bound to the RAI area and to the DISPATCH and SIPCORE
 working groups.
 In 2015, The RAI area merged with the Applications (APP) area to form
 the Applications and Real-Time (ART) area.  This document updates RFC
 5727 to remove its dependency on RAI and its working group structure.
 The updates in this document do not depend on the names of the new
 area, or any specific working group.  Rather, the authors seek to
 future-proof the SIP Change Process against future reorganizations.
 RFC 5727 specified that the DISPATCH working group assesses potential
 new work for the area, and determines where such work should occur.
 DISPATCH does not itself take on such new work.  The SIPCORE working

Campbell, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 7957 Update to SIP Change Process August 2016

 group is responsible for maintenance of SIP.  Other historically RAI
 area working groups develop extensions to SIP that do not change the
 core protocol, new applications of SIP, and other technologies for
 interactive communication among humans.  This document further
 generalizes the processes of the DISPATCH working group so that they
 can be applied to other areas, or to clusters of technologies within
 an area.
 This document does not change any other aspect of RFC 5727.  While
 areas and working groups may change over time, the rules and
 procedures for changing SIP and other historically RAI protocols
 remain the same, until such time that they are updated by future
 documents.

2. DISPATCH-Style Working Groups

 The DISPATCH working group has proven successful at managing new work
 for the RAI and ART areas.  Areas may choose to adopt DISPATCH-like
 procedures, either for an entire area, or for technology clusters in
 an area or across areas.  A "DISPATCH-Style" working group operates
 according to procedures similar to those used for DISPATCH.
 This document is not intended to recommend DISPATCH-style groups for
 any specific IETF area other than ART.  Different areas have
 different needs, and those needs may change over time.  It is up to
 the community and respective Area Directors to determine if a
 DISPATCH-style group is appropriate for any given situation.
 The "DISPATCH-style" includes the following essential elements:
 o  The working group evaluates proposals for new work for an area, or
    for a well-defined technology cluster.  It acts as a filter for
    the area or cluster to determine whether a proposal is a
    reasonable use of, or addition to, associated technologies.  This
    determination may depend upon established criteria (for example,
    the SIP Change Process), the experience and expertise of the
    participants, or a combination of the two.
 o  The DISPATCH-style working group determines an appropriate venue
    for the work.  The venue could be an existing working group.  If
    no appropriate group exists, it may develop a charter for a BoF or
    a new working group.  The group might also recommend that a
    proposal progress as an AD-sponsored individual draft, or even
    that a proposal should not be acted upon at the time.

Campbell, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 7957 Update to SIP Change Process August 2016

 o  The DISPATCH-style working group does not complete the proposed
    work.  It may, however, adopt milestones needed to properly
    dispatch the work.  For example, it may produce charter text for a
    BoF or a new working group, an initial problem statement, or
    documentation about why certain work was not pursued.
 Nothing in this list prevents existing working groups from directly
 adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters, nor does it
 prevent new-work proposals from going directly to BoF meetings when
 appropriate.  For borderline cases, the decision whether new work
 should start in a DISPATCH-style group or elsewhere is made by the
 responsible Area Directors and chairs.  Likewise, in cases where an
 area has multiple DISPATCH-style groups for different purposes or
 technology clusters, deciding which group will handle a particular
 proposal is up to the responsible Area Directors and relevant chairs.
 The charter of a DISPATCH-style group should make that fact clear,
 either by referencing this document, or by directly describing
 similar procedures.

3. Decoupling the SIP Change Process from the RAI Area

 This document clarifies that the SIP Change Process is not bound to
 any particular area or working group structure.  All references to
 the RAI area in RFC 5727 should be interpreted as "the cluster of SIP
 and closely related application and infrastructure technologies, as
 well as other technologies designed primarily for interactive
 communication, historically among humans".
 While the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups are expected to
 continue in their current capacities, nothing in the SIP Change
 Process prevents their responsibilities from being assigned to other
 working groups in the future.
 All other aspects of the SIP Change Process are to continue as
 described in RFC 5727.

4. Security Considerations

 This document discusses the roles and responsibilities of areas and
 working groups.  It does not create new security considerations in
 the conventional sense.
 However, organizational structures come with their own security
 considerations.  A DISPATCH-style working group has the potential to
 concentrate the control of work for an area or cluster in the hands
 of a much smaller set of people than those in the whole area or
 cluster.  This could effectively create bottlenecks or roadblocks for

Campbell, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 7957 Update to SIP Change Process August 2016

 new work in an area or cluster.  Likewise, such a concentration could
 reduce the quality of decisions about new work.  Care must be taken
 to avoid this risk.  The best mitigation is active participation in
 the group by as many people in the area or cluster as possible.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

 [RFC5727]  Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process
            for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real-
            time Applications and Infrastructure Area", BCP 67,
            RFC 5727, DOI 10.17487/RFC5727, March 2010,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5727>.

5.2. Informative References

 [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
            A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
            Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
 [RFC3427]  Mankin, A., Bradner, S., Mahy, R., Willis, D., Ott, J.,
            and B. Rosen, "Change Process for the Session Initiation
            Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3427, DOI 10.17487/RFC3427, December
            2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3427>.

Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to thank all the previous authors of the SIP
 Change Process for their contributions.  Jon Peterson, Cullen
 Jennings, and Robert Sparks authored RFC 5727.  That RFC obsoleted
 [RFC3427], which was in turn written by Allison Mankin, Scott
 Bradner, Rohan Mahy, Dean Willis, Brian Rosen, and Joerg Ott.
 The authors additionally thank the present and past chairs of
 DISPATCH and SIPCORE, as well as all the participants in the former
 RAI area since its inception.

Campbell, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 7957 Update to SIP Change Process August 2016

Authors' Addresses

 Ben Campbell (editor)
 Oracle
 Email: ben@nostrum.com
 Alissa Cooper
 Cisco
 Email: alcoop@cisco.com
 Barry Leiba
 Huawei Technologies
 Phone: +1 646 827 0648
 Email: barryleiba@computer.org
 URI:   http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/

Campbell, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 6]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7957.txt · Last modified: 2016/08/24 20:05 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki