RFC 7957

DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP Change Process

📅 published August 2016, from ietf

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 🎀 Request for Comments: 7957 ✨

Okay bestie, this RFC is giving BCP 67 energy 👑. Here's the title block tea:

Authors: B. Campbell (editor, Oracle), A. Cooper (Cisco), and B. Leiba (Huawei Technologies) 💅
Category: Best Current Practice 🌸
Date: August 2016 🦋
Updates: RFC 5727 🫶
ISSN: 2070-1721

DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP Change Process 🌈

Abstract ✨

okay so RFC 5727 set up a bunch of processes for the old Real-time Applications and Infrastructure (RAI) area 🧚. These include how the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and friends evolve, plus how the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups run. This doc updates RFC 5727 so the area and working group setup can be flexible 💖, while the SIP change processes stay exactly the same ✨. It also generalizes the DISPATCH working group processes so other working groups can totally copy them 🙌.

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 got public review, and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) approved it for publication 👑. More BCP info lives in Section 2 of RFC 7841 🦋.

Want the current status, errata, or a way to send feedback? Check http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7957 💅.

Copyright Notice 🌈

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 🫶. Read these carefully, bestie, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 📜. Code Components pulled out of this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come 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 are collectively called the "SIP Change Process" 💅. Areas don't normally have "charters" per se, but RFC 5727 basically worked as a charter for RAI ✨. The RFC 5727 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 become 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 here don't depend on the new area's name or on any specific working group 💖. The authors want to future-proof the SIP Change Process against future reorgs, which is honestly iconic of them 👑.

RFC 5727 said that the DISPATCH working group assesses potential new work for the area and figures out where that work should happen 🧚. DISPATCH doesn't take on the new work itself 💅. The SIPCORE working group maintains SIP 🔥. Other historically RAI working groups develop SIP extensions that don't change the core protocol, new SIP applications, and other tech for interactive communication among humans 🌸. This document further generalizes DISPATCH's processes so they can be applied to other areas, or to clusters of tech within an area 🦋.

This document doesn't change anything else in RFC 5727 ✨. Areas and working groups may change over time, but the rules and procedures for changing SIP and other historically RAI protocols stay the same until future documents update them 🫶.

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's up to the community and the respective Area Directors to decide if a DISPATCH-style group fits any given situation 👑.

The "DISPATCH-style" includes the following essential elements 💖:

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 decide whether a proposal is a reasonable use of, or addition to, the associated technologies 🦋. That call may depend on established criteria (for example, the SIP Change Process), the experience and expertise of the participants, or a mix of both 💅.
The DISPATCH-style working group picks 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 💀.
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 wasn't pursued ✨.

Nothing in this list stops existing working groups from directly adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters 🔥, and it doesn't stop new-work proposals from going straight to BoF meetings when that makes sense 🌸. For borderline cases, the decision on whether new work starts in a DISPATCH-style group or somewhere else is made by the responsible Area Directors and chairs 👑. Likewise, if an area has multiple DISPATCH-style groups for different purposes or technology clusters, deciding which group handles 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 isn't 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" 🎀.

While the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups are expected to keep going in their current capacities 🌸, nothing in the SIP Change Process stops their responsibilities from being handed to other working groups later 🦋.

Everything else about the SIP Change Process continues as described in RFC 5727 ✨.

4. Security Considerations 💀

This document discusses the roles and responsibilities of areas and working groups 🧚. It doesn't create new security considerations in the conventional sense 🫶.

BUT. Organizational structures come with their own security considerations 🚨. A DISPATCH-style working group has the potential to concentrate control of work for an area or cluster in the hands of a much smaller set of people than the whole area or cluster 😭. This could effectively create bottlenecks or roadblocks for new work 🙈. Likewise, that 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 want to thank all the previous authors of the SIP Change Process for their contributions 🫶. Jon Peterson, Cullen Jennings, and Robert Sparks wrote 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 also thank the present and past chairs of DISPATCH and SIPCORE, plus everyone who took part in the former RAI area since its beginning 🌈🧚.

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/ 💅✨

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc7957 2016-08
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-18: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms