





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]

