Update to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Preconditions Framework
draft-ietf-sip-rfc3312-update-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2005-03-04
|
03 | Allison Mankin | State Change Notice email list have been change to dean.willis@softarmor.com, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, rohan@ekabal.com from dean.willis@softarmor.com, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, rohan@kabal.com |
2004-11-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2004-11-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2004-11-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2004-11-01
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2004-10-30
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Email to Secretariat asking to announce |
2004-10-30
|
03 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Allison Mankin |
2004-10-30
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Text for abstract and intro provided by Gonzalo. |
2004-10-30
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Corresponded with Spencer, Gonzalo, gen-art, on sentences for RFC Editor note. |
2004-10-30
|
03 | Allison Mankin | State Change Notice email list have been change to dean.willis@softarmor.com, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, rohan@kabal.com from |
2004-10-29
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-10-28 |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART. Review added as comment to document. I am somewhat worried by one point from his review: It is … [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART. Review added as comment to document. I am somewhat worried by one point from his review: It is not clear why this is an update and not a replacement. The more "updates" we do, the more labyrinthine the web of references becomes for our users. But that's an overall concern, and shouldn't be blocking for this particular document. |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Review by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART I'm reviewing this document as a Working Group submission for Proposed Standard. Please take this as a compliment - I … Review by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART I'm reviewing this document as a Working Group submission for Proposed Standard. Please take this as a compliment - I think most of the problems with this document stem from having very knowledgeable authors who forget how little some of us know about SIP! I'd say "headed the right direction, but considerable work is needed before publishing". Overall - I'm wondering why we're doing this document as an update to RFC 3312, instead of as a replacement for RFC 3312. We really aren't very good at saying what a standard is, and if a standard can reasonably be published as a single document, instead of as a set of documents published over time, I'd prefer to see that. We ended up with an entire working group chartered to figure out what TCP really is, and I'm sure we'll see more SIP documents in the next 23 years than we've seen published on TCP in the last 23 years (since RFC 793). If there's a good reason for publishing an update (and not something silly like "we want to republish as a draft standard and don't want to reset our clock"), there should at least be a summary section that says "these are the things we changed". It is possible to figure this out by reading the entire document, but that means people may be reading a document that doesn't affect them, and they can't figure out that they don't need to read it until they finish it :-( Section 3.4 - "In general, the called user is not alterted until the preconditions are met" - "alterted" is typoed, but that's a nit. I'd really like to understand why this isn't "is never alerted until" - is this always true, but that's not what the draft says? Is there a well-known case where called users ARE alerted before the preconditions are met? (If there is, should we change the specÊfor consistency?) second paragraph in 3.4 - "Still" isn't needed and is confusing. third paragraph in 3.4, and following - this section is way too confusing - at the minimum, the indented text should be NEW text, reflecting the updated concept, because indentation draws the reader's eyes to the old text that is no longer completely true! Section 4 - s/oft/of/, but that's a nit. Paragraphs three and four seem to say "the specification has been misleading up to this point, so now we'll tell you what we should have said in the first place". Section 5 - the end of the fourth paragraph explains that moving a media stream is like setting it up in the first place, from a precondition point of view. This statement should appear a LOT higher in section 4, because it is key to understanding what's going on. sixth paragraph in 4.1 - I THINK s/answer/answerer/, but might be confused. The following table doesn't seem to be required (some ideas really justify prose). Section 6 - "no IANA considerations", but preconditions ARE registered by IANA (as pointed out in 3.1). I think this is saying "3312 had IANA considerations, but the parts that we're changing don't" - I'd still like to see this draft contain all of 3312... Extremely minor nit throughout - reference identifiers are attached to a lot of occurrences, not just the first one. RFC 3312 is tagged as [3] about twelve times. |
2004-10-28
|
03 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2004-10-27
|
03 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-10-27
|
03 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2004-10-26
|
03 | Michelle Cotton | IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS: We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2004-10-25
|
03 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2004-10-25
|
03 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2004-10-25
|
03 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin |
2004-10-25
|
03 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-10-24
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The heading and abstract need to indicate that this document is an update to RFC 3312. |
2004-10-24
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] In section 3.4: s/not alerting the user/not alerting the called user/ In section 4: s/Section 5 oft RFC 3312/Section 5 of … |
2004-10-24
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2004-10-23
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin |
2004-10-23
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Ballot has been issued by Allison Mankin |
2004-10-23
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Created "Approve" ballot |
2004-10-21
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-10-28 by Allison Mankin |
2004-10-11
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2004-10-11
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2004-10-11
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Last Call was requested by Allison Mankin |
2004-10-11
|
03 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Allison Mankin |
2004-10-11
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2004-10-11
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2004-10-11
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2004-09-29
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sip-rfc3312-update-03.txt |
2004-09-20
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sip-rfc3312-update-02.txt |
2004-07-19
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2004-07-19
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sip-rfc3312-update-01.txt |
2004-06-15
|
03 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Allison Mankin |
2004-06-15
|
03 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Allison Mankin |
2004-01-16
|
03 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova |
2003-11-21
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sip-rfc3312-update-00.txt |