Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for the 3GPP
draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-14
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-07-17
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-07-14
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-07-05
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-06-20
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-06-20
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-06-19
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-06-19
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on ADs |
2014-06-03
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on ADs from In Progress |
2014-06-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2014-06-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-06-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2014-05-28
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-05-28
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2014-05-21
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-05-21
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-05-21
|
14 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-05-20
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-05-20
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-05-20
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-05-20
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-05-20
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-05-20
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-05-20
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-05-20
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-05-15
|
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-04-25
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-04-25
|
14 | Roland Jesske | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-04-25
|
14 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-14.txt |
2014-04-17
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-04-14
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-04-10
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-04-10
|
13 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] In 4.1.1: The P-Associated-URI header field is applicable in SIP networks where the SIP provider a set of identities that a … [Ballot comment] In 4.1.1: The P-Associated-URI header field is applicable in SIP networks where the SIP provider a set of identities that a user can claim (in header fields like the From header field) in requests that the UA generates. I think you are missing a verb here. |
2014-04-10
|
13 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-04-10
|
13 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-04-10
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] In side discussion with Richard, we came up with the following text to be added to 4.3: Note that P-Visited-Network information reveals the … [Ballot comment] In side discussion with Richard, we came up with the following text to be added to 4.3: Note that P-Visited-Network information reveals the location of the user, to the level of the coverage area of the visited network. For a national network, for example, P-Visited-Network would reveal that the user is in the country in question. It would be helpful to state the hop-by-hop integrity protection requirement from 6.3 in 4.3.1 as well. |
2014-04-10
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-04-10
|
13 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for writing this draft. I am ready to recommend the approval of the draft, but before that the discussion raised after Martin … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for writing this draft. I am ready to recommend the approval of the draft, but before that the discussion raised after Martin Thomsons'sGen-ART review needs to finish, so that we agree on what changes (if any) are necessary. |
2014-04-10
|
13 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-04-09
|
13 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-04-09
|
13 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-04-09
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-04-08
|
13 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-04-08
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] In this text: 4.3.2.2. Procedures at the registrar and proxy Note that a received P-Visited-Network-ID from a UA is a failure case and … [Ballot comment] In this text: 4.3.2.2. Procedures at the registrar and proxy Note that a received P-Visited-Network-ID from a UA is a failure case and MUST be deleted when the request is forwarded. is "a failure case" the right description? |
2014-04-08
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-04-08
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot discuss] The text in 4.3.2 leaves me wondering: what is the use case where proxies need to be able to read the visited network … [Ballot discuss] The text in 4.3.2 leaves me wondering: what is the use case where proxies need to be able to read the visited network ID? And why are the applicability statements for 4.3 and 4.4 so different, given that information about the networks to which a device roams can be quite sensitive? |
2014-04-08
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] It would be helpful to state the hop-by-hop integrity protection requirement from 6.3 in 4.3.1 as well. |
2014-04-08
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2014-04-07
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Some comments to consider: Section 4.3.2 should cover privacy issues related to the content (DNS names) of the P-Visited-Network-ID header field. Section 4.6: … [Ballot comment] Some comments to consider: Section 4.3.2 should cover privacy issues related to the content (DNS names) of the P-Visited-Network-ID header field. Section 4.6: The letter 't' is missing in the second to last paragraph at the end of the word present. When presen only one instance of the header MUST be present in a particular request or response. Section 5.5 and 5.6 cover P-Charging-Function-Addresses header field syntax and P-Charging-Vector header syntax respectively. The section does not include a discussion on fraud and it seems like this would be important? Several of the other sections do include security implications prior to the Security Considerations section. This is a non-blocking comment since trust and integrity are listed as important to prevent modifications, but it would be good to see mention of fraud as the motivation for an attack either in these sections or in the Security Considerations section. |
2014-04-07
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-04-07
|
13 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-04-07
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-04-04
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-04-10 |
2014-04-04
|
13 | Richard Barnes | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-04-04
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Ballot has been issued |
2014-04-04
|
13 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-04-04
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-03-14
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2014-03-04
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-03-04
|
13 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the Header Fields registry in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters page at http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/ six existing header fields are to have their reference changed from RFC3455 to [ RFC-to-be ]. The header fields to have reference changes are: P-Associated-URI P-Called-Party-ID P-Visited-Network-ID P-Access-Network-Info P-Charging-Function-Addresses P-Charging-Vector IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2014-02-28
|
13 | Martin Thomson | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Martin Thomson. |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2014-02-20
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2014-02-17
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2014-02-17
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)' as Informational RFC 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 2014-03-14. 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 set of private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) header fields (P-headers) used by the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), along with their applicability, which is limited to particular environments. The P-header fields are for a variety of purposes within the networks that the partners use, including charging and information about the networks a call traverses. This document is an update to RFC3455. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Richard Barnes | PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt To be Published as: Informational Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 16 January 2014 (1) What type of … PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt To be Published as: Informational Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 16 January 2014 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document obsoletes RFC 3455, which was originally published as an informational document. Thus, Informational is appropriate. This RFC type is indicated on the title page. (2) 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: This document describes a set of private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) header fields (P-headers) used by the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), along with their applicability, which is limited to particular environments. The P-header fields are for a variety of purposes within the networks that the partners use, including charging and information about the networks a call traverses. Working Group Summary: Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? This document has been discussed in the DISPATCH WG and in the SIPPING WG prior to that. The DISPATCH WG does not progress any documents as WG documents. This document defines P-headers, which per the SIP Change process (RFC 3427), do not require WG consensus for publication. While RFC 5727 deprecated the definition of P-headers for SIP, the P-headers in this document followed the procedures that were adopted by RFC 3427, which were in place at the time of publication of RFC 3455. Individual/AD sponsored is the typical publication path. 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? This document is required for the 3GPP/IMS specifications, thus any vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this specification. Dean Willis performed an expert review of this document, suggesting several changes, which have been incorporated. Several other individuals reviewed and or commented on the document both on the DISPATCH WG mailing list, as well as previously on the SIPPING WG mailing list. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd. Richard Banes is the Responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has thoroughly reviewed this version of the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The only concern I have is that one of the authors indicated that he has not read any of the more recent versions. Thus, my concern is that he might actually bother to do that during AUTH48 and potentially raise non-trivial issues (as I've seen happen with other documents where authors haven't been engaged for a period of time). (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? There is WG consensus that AD sponsored is the best approach for progressing this document. No one has expressed concerns about its progression. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document was checked using idnits 2.13.01. There is a warning about the IP addresses in the examples, which do need to be changed to be within the documentation range per RFC 5735. While it's not indicated by idnits, there are still some domains which are not using the example domains as specified in 2606. I believe these nits can be fixed along with any IETF Last Call comments. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Per the SIP change process, this document requires expert review as it defines P-headers. Dean Willis performed the expert review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary. This document obsoletes RFC 3455, which is indicated in the Title, abstract and overview. The changes/impact on RFC 3455 are described in section 9. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document clearly identifies the IANA considerations. This document defines no new IANA registries. The only impact on IANA registrations is updating the references to the RFC number assigned when this document is published. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. This document defines no new IANA registries, thus no expert review is required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The ABNF for this document was validated using Bill Fenner's ABNF web parsing tool. |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Last call was requested |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Richard Barnes | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-02-14
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-02-05
|
13 | Richard Barnes | PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt To be Published as: Informational Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 16 January 2014 (1) What type of … PROTO questionnaire for: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt To be Published as: Informational Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 16 January 2014 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document obsoletes RFC 3455, which was originally published as an informational document. Thus, Informational is appropriate. This RFC type is indicated on the title page. (2) 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: This document describes a set of private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) header fields (P-headers) used by the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), along with their applicability, which is limited to particular environments. The P-header fields are for a variety of purposes within the networks that the partners use, including charging and information about the networks a call traverses. Working Group Summary: Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? This document has been discussed in the DISPATCH WG and in the SIPPING WG prior to that. The DISPATCH WG does not progress any documents as WG documents. This document defines P-headers, which per the SIP Change process (RFC 3427), do not require WG consensus for publication. While RFC 5727 deprecated the definition of P-headers for SIP, the P-headers in this document followed the procedures that were adopted by RFC 3427, which were in place at the time of publication of RFC 3455. Individual/AD sponsored is the typical publication path. 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? This document is required for the 3GPP/IMS specifications, thus any vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this specification. Dean Willis performed an expert review of this document, suggesting several changes, which have been incorporated. Several other individuals reviewed and or commented on the document both on the DISPATCH WG mailing list, as well as previously on the SIPPING WG mailing list. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo is the Responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has thoroughly reviewed this version of the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The only concern I have is that one of the authors indicated that he has not read any of the more recent versions. Thus, my concern is that he might actually bother to do that during AUTH48 and potentially raise non-trivial issues (as I've seen happen with other documents where authors haven't been engaged for a period of time). (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? There is WG consensus that AD sponsored is the best approach for progressing this document. No one has expressed concerns about its progression. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document was checked using idnits 2.13.01. There is a warning about the IP addresses in the examples, which do need to be changed to be within the documentation range per RFC 5735. While it's not indicated by idnits, there are still some domains which are not using the example domains as specified in 2606. I believe these nits can be fixed along with any IETF Last Call comments. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Per the SIP change process, this document requires expert review as it defines P-headers. Dean Willis performed the expert review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary. This document obsoletes RFC 3455, which is indicated in the Title, abstract and overview. The changes/impact on RFC 3455 are described in section 9. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document clearly identifies the IANA considerations. This document defines no new IANA registries. The only impact on IANA registrations is updating the references to the RFC number assigned when this document is published. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. This document defines no new IANA registries, thus no expert review is required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The ABNF for this document was validated using Bill Fenner's ABNF web parsing tool. |
2014-02-05
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Assigned to Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area |
2014-02-05
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2014-02-05
|
13 | Richard Barnes | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-02-05
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Document shepherd changed to Mary Barnes |
2014-02-05
|
13 | Richard Barnes | Stream changed to IETF from None |
2014-01-14
|
13 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13.txt |
2014-01-08
|
12 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-12.txt |
2014-01-06
|
11 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-11.txt |
2013-12-03
|
10 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-10.txt |
2013-10-08
|
09 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-09.txt |
2013-03-15
|
08 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-08.txt |
2013-02-04
|
07 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-07.txt |
2012-11-16
|
06 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-06.txt |
2012-11-08
|
05 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-05.txt |
2012-04-02
|
04 | Roland Jesske | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-04.txt |
2012-01-09
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-03.txt |
2011-11-14
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-05-02
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-02.txt |
2008-07-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-01.txt |
2005-10-20
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-00.txt |