Skip to main content

URNs for the Alert-Info Header Field of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: RFC Editor <>,
    salud mailing list <>,
    salud chair <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'URNs for the Alert-Info Header Field of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-14.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'URNs for the Alert-Info Header Field of the Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP)'
  (draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-14.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Sip ALerting for User Devices Working

The IESG contact persons are Richard Barnes and Alissa Cooper.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

	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

The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) supports the capability to
provide a reference to a specific rendering to be used by the UA when
the user is alerted.  This is done using the Alert-Info header field.
However, providing a reference (typically a URL) addresses only a
specific network resource with specific rendering properties.  This
document defines a new namespace of URNs for use in Alert-Info header
fields.  The URNs are defined to describe characteristics of the
incoming call, characteristics of how the call is being handled at the
callee, and rendering characteristics of the desired signal.  The URNs
can be combined to provide complex descriptions of the intended
signal.  Provisions are made for private extensions that can describe
additional signal characteristics and additional subcategorization of
standardized characteristics.  Detailed resolution rules are provided
to ensure that a renderer provides the best representation that it can
of the signaler's intention.

	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?

There is solid consensus in the SALUD WG of the value of this work and
the usefulness of this document.  A large set of requirements has been
identified to ensure that the proposed URNs can be used successfully
in converting existing telephone switches to operate using SIP.

	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?

Deutsche Telekom has indicated that they intend to implement this document.

An important review of the proposed URN namespace was done by Alfred
Hoenes, which identified a number of deficiencies in the original
proposal (which have been eliminated).  After revision, the URN
namespace definition was presented on the urn-nid mailing list, and no
objections were raised.

Many reviews have been done by the authors, and a final review by the
Document Shepherd, which convince the WG that there are no substantive
issues remaining.


	Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

The Document Shepherd is Christer Holmberg.

The Responsible Area Director is Richard Barnes.

RFC Editor Note