DISPATCH-Style WGs: DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP Change Process
Untying the SIP change process from one IETF area, and sharing the DISPATCH way of sorting new work.
Campbell, B., Ed., Cooper, A., and B. Leiba, "DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP Change Process", BCP 67, RFC 7957, DOI 10.17487/RFC7957, August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7957>.
@misc{rfc7957,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 7957,
howpublished = {RFC 7957},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC7957},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7957},
author = {B. Campbell and A. Cooper and B. Leiba},
title = {{DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP Change Process}},
pagetotal = 6,
year = 2016,
month = aug,
} RFC text
Contents
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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/
AI ELI5
On this page
§1Why RFC 5727 Needed an Update
RFC 5727 described how to evolve and maintain the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and related technologies in the former Real-time Applications and Infrastructure (RAI) area. These processes are together called the SIP Change Process. Areas do not normally have charters, but RFC 5727 effectively served as one for RAI, and its language 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. The update removes the dependency on RAI and its working group structure. It does not depend on the names of the new area or any specific working group, since the authors want to future-proof the process against reorganizations.
The old rulebook named a specific club. When the club merged with another, the rulebook no longer matched. The update rewrites it so club names do not matter.
§1DISPATCH and SIPCORE Roles
Under RFC 5727, the DISPATCH working group assesses potential new work for the area and decides where it should happen. DISPATCH does not take on that new work itself. The SIPCORE working group is responsible for maintaining SIP. Other working groups from the old RAI area develop SIP extensions that do not change the core protocol, new applications of SIP, and other technologies for interactive communication among humans.
This document generalizes the DISPATCH processes so they can be applied to other areas, or to clusters of technologies within an area. It does not change any other aspect of RFC 5727. Areas and working groups may change over time, but the rules for changing SIP and other historically RAI protocols stay the same until a future document updates them.
One team acts like a front desk that decides who should handle a new request. Another team looks after the main protocol itself. The front desk does not do the work.
§2What a DISPATCH-Style Working Group Does
The DISPATCH working group has proven successful at managing new work for the RAI and ART areas. An area may adopt DISPATCH-like procedures for the whole area or for a technology cluster. The RFC does not recommend this for any specific area other than ART, and leaves the decision to the community and the responsible Area Directors.
A DISPATCH-style group has three essential elements:
- It evaluates proposals for new work and acts as a filter, deciding whether a proposal is a reasonable use of or addition to the associated technologies. This may rely on established criteria such as the SIP Change Process, on participants' expertise, or both.
- It chooses a venue. That could be an existing working group, a new BoF or working group (for which it may write a charter), an AD-sponsored individual draft, or a decision not to act at the time.
- It does not complete the work, though it may adopt milestones to dispatch it, such as charter text, an initial problem statement, or a note on why work was not pursued.
A DISPATCH-style group sorts new ideas. It checks whether the idea makes sense, then points it to the right team, or says not now. It does not build the idea itself.
§2Limits and Edge Cases
Nothing in the definition stops existing working groups from directly adopting new work that fits their charters, and proposals may go straight to BoF meetings when appropriate. For borderline cases, the responsible Area Directors and chairs decide whether new work starts in a DISPATCH-style group or elsewhere. If an area has several such groups for different purposes or technology clusters, the Area Directors and relevant chairs decide which one handles a proposal.
The charter of a DISPATCH-style group should make that fact clear, either by referencing this document or by directly describing similar procedures.
The front desk is not mandatory. If a request clearly belongs to one team, it can go straight there, and the grown-ups in charge settle the unclear cases.
§3Decoupling the SIP Change Process from RAI
The RFC 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 read 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".
DISPATCH and SIPCORE are expected to continue in their current capacities, but nothing in the process prevents their responsibilities from being given to other working groups later. All other aspects of the SIP Change Process continue as described in RFC 5727.
Wherever the old rules said the name of one club, read it as a description of the kind of work. That way the rules still apply even if the club changes names.
§4Security Considerations
The document discusses the roles of areas and working groups and creates no new security considerations in the conventional sense. It does point out an organizational risk: a DISPATCH-style group could concentrate control of an area's new work in the hands of far fewer people than the whole area, creating bottlenecks or roadblocks and possibly lowering the quality of decisions about new work.
The best mitigation named is active participation in the group by as many people in the area or cluster as possible.
If only a few people decide what gets built, they might slow things down or choose badly. The fix is for lots of people to join in and speak up.