Indicating Fax over IP Capability in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Indicating Fax over IP Capability in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-hanes-dispatch-fax-capability-08.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Indicating Fax over IP Capability in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' (draft-hanes-dispatch-fax-capability-08.txt) as Proposed Standard This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Gonzalo Camarillo. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hanes-dispatch-fax-capability/
Technical Summary: This document defines and registers with IANA the new 'fax' media feature tag for use with SIP. Currently, fax calls are indistinguishable from voice at call initiation. Consequently, fax calls can be routed to SIP user agents that are not fax capable. A 'fax' media feature tag implemented in conjunction with caller preferences allows for more accurate fax call routing. 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? Per the RAI area process for new work, this document has been reviewed in the DISPATCH WG. The DISPATCH WG does not progress any documents as WG documents. The DISPATCH WG selects one the following actions for contributions to the WG that have been adequately reviewed and discussed: - None in the case of work items for which there is inadequate interest or feedback indicates that the work should not be progressed (e.g., it's a bad idea or not within scope for RAI area or IETF) - New work item in currently chartered WG - New WG or mini-WG in the case where the deliverable is likely a single document - e.g. a new SIP header - IETF official BoF - typically for work items that are of broad interest and potential impact within the RAI area and across areas. - Individual/AD sponsored - for items limited in scope and applicability Individual/AD sponsored was the consensus of the DISPATCH WG for this document and the AD(s) agreed to progress the document. There was no controversy around this decision. 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 a dependency for the SIP Forum Fax over IP (FoIP) Task group. While the use of fax is not widespread, there are key areas where it is still required (e.g., medical field). There are vendors that are planning to implement this specification. 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.