Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
08 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stephen Farrell |
2012-02-29
|
08 | Pete Resnick | The following message was sent after the Last Call: Message-ID: <4F43FF5C.6060003@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:32:28 -0600 From: Pete Resnick To: IETF-Discussion … The following message was sent after the Last Call: Message-ID: <4F43FF5C.6060003@qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:32:28 -0600 From: Pete Resnick To: IETF-Discussion list Subject: Conclusion of Last Call for draft-ietf-sieve-convert and draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message I wanted to inform the community of the results of the second Last Call issued for draft-ietf-sieve-convert and draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message. To remind you of the circumstances: After these two documents were approved by the IESG and sent on to the RFC Editor, an IPR disclosure was made pertaining to each of them indicating that one of the document editors for both documents was also the listed inventor for the disclosed patent. The disclosures were made by the document editor's employer and indicate that the date of the patent filings was prior to the adoption of these two drafts by the SIEVE working group. The RFC Editor was asked to suspend their work on the documents, and a second Last Call was made. After reviewing discussions in the SIEVE WG and on the IETF mailing list, the chairs have decided (and I support) that, because of the failure to disclose the IPR as required by BCP 79 (RFC 3979), and as per RFC 2418 Section 6.1, the following actions are appropriate and will be taken: - The document editor in question is no longer a document editor for these two documents. - The person's name will be removed from the front page of the documents and from the Authors' Address section. - The person's name will be added to the Acknowledgments section of both documents to identify that he did contribute text to the drafts. - The RFC Editor will be asked to continue processing and publication of these drafts as RFCs. We will be notifying the RFC Editor of this decision presently. Meanwhile, the employer of the document editor in question has made followup disclosures on each of the documents, saying that they "covenant not to assert any such claim against any party for making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing a product that implements the corresponding part of the specification." The full text of the disclosures can be seen here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1680/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1681/ pr -- Pete Resnick |
2012-02-27
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-02-13
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08 | |
2012-02-08
|
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA has already completed the following actions for this document, and understands that no changes are required: IANA has registered the following Sieve Notification Mechanism: … IANA has already completed the following actions for this document, and understands that no changes are required: IANA has registered the following Sieve Notification Mechanism: sip-message SIP/SIPS as specified in [RFC3261]. none [Sieve_discussion_list] [RFC-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08] Please see http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification |
2012-02-08
|
08 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2012-01-29
|
08 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2012-01-27
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla |
2012-01-27
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla |
2012-01-26
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2012-01-26
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2012-01-25
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2012-01-25
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Second Last Call: (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG (sieve) to consider the following document: - 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE' as a Proposed Standard Last calls were earlier issued on version -05 of this document and this document was approved by the IESG on 2011-10-06. Subsequently, an IPR disclosure statement for this draft was submitted. This Second Last Call is intended to determine whether the community is still comfortable with publication of this document in light of the IPR statement. The relevant IPR statement is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/ The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for notifications, to allow notifications to be sent over SIP MESSAGE. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1658/ |
2012-01-25
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Last Call was requested |
2012-01-25
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Last Call Requested from RFC Ed Queue. |
2012-01-25
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Last Call text changed |
2011-12-14
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08 | |
2011-11-15
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2011-11-14
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2011-11-14
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2011-11-14
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2011-11-14
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2011-10-28
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2011-10-19
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-10-18
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-10-18
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-10-18
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2011-10-18
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-10-18
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-10-11
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt |
2011-10-07
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-07.txt |
2011-10-06
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-10-06
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-10-06
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-10-06
|
08 | Pete Resnick | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-10-06
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-06
|
08 | Amanda Baber | Upon approval of this document, IANA will register the following at : Mechanism name: sip-message Mechanism URI: SIP/SIPS as specified in RFC 3261 [RFC3261 … Upon approval of this document, IANA will register the following at : Mechanism name: sip-message Mechanism URI: SIP/SIPS as specified in RFC 3261 [RFC3261] Mechanism-specific options: none Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [RFC XXXX] Person and email address to contact for further information: See authors of [RFC XXXX] |
2011-10-05
|
08 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] I have a similar comment as Stephen (in his first comment). The use case is not clear, and some text or reference about … [Ballot comment] I have a similar comment as Stephen (in his first comment). The use case is not clear, and some text or reference about why and where notifications are sent over SIP would be useful. |
2011-10-05
|
08 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-05
|
08 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-10-04
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-04
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have a bunch of Comments on this document. I don't think any is serious enough to merit a Discuss, but I do … [Ballot comment] I have a bunch of Comments on this document. I don't think any is serious enough to merit a Discuss, but I do hope the authors will have a look at addressing them before the document is advanced for publication. --- Section 2.1 Passive voice is to be avoided... The URI parameter "method" MUST be included and MUST contain the value "MESSAGE". Must be included where and by whom? --- Section 2.1 Is the "note" present twice? --- Section 2.2 You have a couple of instances of :from without quote marks. --- Section 2.5 The default message body SHOULD contain the values of the "From" and "Subject" header fields of the triggering email message One is bound to ask: under what circumstances can the From and Subject header fields be left out, and what would the result be? --- Section 2.6 Implementations SHOULD NOT use the hname "body" parameter value as the message-body of the SIP MESSAGE request. Since this is "SHOULD NOT" they presumably can do so if they have good reasons. Can you state that reason or change this to "MUST NOT"? --- Section 2.6 If the notification request fails, there will be a SIP error code describing the failure. Elegant prose, but unsure exactly what it means. It could mean that there is no failure other than one for which a SIP error code has been defined. Or it could mean that an error code will be found in a majick place. --- Section 2.7 Because, absent use of SIP extensions such as [RFC3856], it is impossible to tell in advance whether the notification recipient is online and able to receive a SIP MESSAGE, the notify_method_capability test for "online" will always return "maybe" for this notification method. But surely, if RFC 3856 extensions are in use, the test for "online" could return more details. Maybe you intend to say that the test needs to have uniform behavior regardless of whether 3856 extensions are in use, and so... |
2011-10-04
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-04
|
08 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-04
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I don't get the use-case for this - why would I want a SIP MESSAGE for each of the emails I get? … [Ballot comment] - I don't get the use-case for this - why would I want a SIP MESSAGE for each of the emails I get? I think a motivating use-case (or reference thereto) would be useful. - (Related to discuss point 1) How can a program "take care" to "ensure that confidential information is not sent" when any inbound mail might be forwarded? If you mean that deployments SHOULD use sips URIs then just saying that seems better. - If someone set this up and that could be detected from the Internet, and if each SIP MESSAGE cost someone some money, then a botnet could easily ramp up a whole lot of charges. Is that something that warrants a mention? (I'm not sure.) |
2011-10-04
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Just a few points that should be fairly easily handled. (1) You say that UAs MUST implement e2e SIP security. My understanding is … [Ballot discuss] Just a few points that should be fairly easily handled. (1) You say that UAs MUST implement e2e SIP security. My understanding is that that is mythical since no-one does it. Am I wrong? If not, then I think you could say something about what might go wrong without e2e security mechanisms and that ought be enough. (2) If SIP e2e security were implemented, and if the mail message is S/MIME encrypted, then are there any possible ways to confuse the two uses of CMS that might lead to problems? I guess there shouldn't be, but given that this would represent one rarely used feature (S/MIME) and one possibly mythical one (SIP e2e CMS), I guess it might not have been thought through in the WG. (3) If the rx'd mail is s/mime or pgp encrypted, what gets forwarded, the plaintext or ciphertext? (I hope the latter, just checking since I'm not that familiar with how sieve and mail UAs work together.) If the forwarded SIP MESSAGE could contain the plaintext then I think you need to say to not do that. (4) How does loop prevention work via rate limiting? Isn't it still a loop even if only 1 message per N seconds is sent? |
2011-10-04
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-10-04
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-06.txt |
2011-10-03
|
08 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-03
|
08 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-03
|
08 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-03
|
08 | Robert Sparks | RAI review is at |
2011-09-30
|
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-29
|
08 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-27
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-26
|
08 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-25
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I don't get the use-case for this - why would I want a SIP MESSAGE for each of the emails I get? … [Ballot comment] - I don't get the use-case for this - why would I want a SIP MESSAGE for each of the emails I get? I think a motivating use-case (or reference thereto) would be useful. - (Related to discuss point 1) How can a program "take care" to "ensure that confidential information is not sent" when any inbound mail might be forwarded? If you mean that deployments SHOULD use sips URIs then just saying that seems better. - If someone set this up and that could be detected from the Internet, and if each SIP MESSAGE cost someone some money, then a botnet could easily ramp up a whole lot of charges. Is that something that warrants a mention? (I'm not sure.) |
2011-09-25
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Just a few points that should be fairly easily handled. (1) You say that UAs MUST implement e2e SIP security. My understanding is … [Ballot discuss] Just a few points that should be fairly easily handled. (1) You say that UAs MUST implement e2e SIP security. My understanding is that that is mythical since no-one does it. Am I wrong? If not, then I think you could say something about what might go wrong without e2e security mechanisms and that ought be enough. (2) If SIP e2e security were implemented, and if the mail message is S/MIME encrypted, then are there any possible ways to confuse the two uses of CMS that might lead to problems? I guess there shouldn't be, but given that this would represent one rarely used feature (S/MIME) and one possibly mythical one (SIP e2e CMS), I guess it might not have been thought through in the WG. (3) If the rx'd mail is s/mime or pgp encrypted, what gets forwarded, the plaintext or ciphertext? (I hope the latter, just checking since I'm not that familiar with how sieve and mail UAs work together.) If the forwarded SIP MESSAGE could contain the plaintext then I think you need to say to not do that. (4) How does loop prevention work via rate limiting? Isn't it still a loop even if only 1 message per N seconds is sent? |
2011-09-25
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-09-21
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG (sieve) to consider the following document: - 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-05. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for notifications, to allow notifications to be sent over SIP MESSAGE. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2011-09-20
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-10-06 |
2011-09-20
|
08 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2011-09-20
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Ballot has been issued |
2011-09-20
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-09-20
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Last Call was requested |
2011-09-20
|
08 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
2011-09-20
|
08 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-09-20
|
08 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-09-20
|
08 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-09-07
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-05.txt |
2011-09-07
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Last Call text changed |
2011-09-07
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Approval announcement text changed |
2011-09-07
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-09-07
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2011-09-07
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-09-07
|
08 | Pete Resnick | "Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE" Chairs Write-up for IESG. draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-04 - Proposed Standard (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the … "Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE" Chairs Write-up for IESG. draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-04 - Proposed Standard (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo I have personally reviewed this document and believe it ready for submission to the IESG. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This extension started as an individual submission in 2007 and was adopted as a WG document in 2008. The basic premise has remained the same throughout all revisions of the document. This extension adds an additional notification method to the SIEVE Notify extension (RFC5435) that enables use of SIP as a notification mechanism. There were no major issues with the SIEVE aspects of this extension, given experience with developing other notification mechanisms (already published as RFCs). The one major area of concern was the use of the SIP URI itself. Following an initial WG last call where this issue was brought up, the authors solicited reviews from relevant RAI area experts (in particular Ben Campbell and Adam Roach). The authors' documented the issues in the -03 draft for further WG discussions which resolved the issues, resulting in the current -04 document. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No concerns with this document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? This document has gone through several revisions within the WG, with external reviews requested and addressed where needed. This specification has had detailed review from a core group of WG participants over its last few revisions, but has been reviewed by others over its lifetime and discussed at several IETF meetings. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? ID nits were checked - no problems. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. A normative references section exists. There are no informative references. All references are to existing RFCs. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Yes. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Yes. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Is an IANA expert needed? Technical Summary The Sieve scripting language is used to filter email messages. One action that can be executed on matching messages is sending of a notification, which can be sent using different mechanisms. This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for notifications, to allow notifications to be sent over SIP MESSAGE. Working Group Summary This extension started as an individual submission in 2007 and was adopted as a WG document in 2008. The basic premise has remained the same throughout all revisions of the document. This extension adds an additional notification method to the SIEVE Notify extension (RFC5435) that enables use of SIP as a notification mechanism. There were no major issues with the SIEVE aspects of this extension, given experience with developing other notification mechanisms (already published as RFCs). The one major area of concern was the use of the SIP URI itself. Following an initial WG last call where this issue was brought up, the authors solicited reviews from relevant RAI area experts. The authors' documented the issues in the -03 draft for further WG discussions which resolved the issues, resulting in the current -04 document, which underwent another WG last call. Document Quality There are no known implementations of this extension at present. Various vendors have expressed interest in implementing this extension, however it is not currently a top priority for any of them. Personnel Document Shepherd: Cyrus Daboo AD: Pete Resnick |
2011-09-07
|
08 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching. |
2011-08-03
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-04.txt |
2011-07-08
|
08 | Peter Saint-Andre | Responsible AD has been changed to Pete Resnick from Peter Saint-Andre |
2011-07-08
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-03.txt |
2011-01-04
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-01-04
|
08 | (System) | State changed to Dead from AD is watching. |
2010-07-29
|
08 | Peter Saint-Andre | Draft Added by Peter Saint-Andre in state AD is watching |
2010-07-03
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-02.txt |
2009-03-07
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-01.txt |
2008-12-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-00.txt |