Content-ID Header Field in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-10-24
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-10-16
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-10-06
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2017-09-08
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-09-06
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2017-09-06
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-09-05
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-09-05
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-09-05
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-09-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-09-05
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2017-09-05
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2017-09-05
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-09-05
|
10 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2017-09-05
|
10 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-09-02
|
10 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-10.txt |
2017-09-02
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-02
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-09-02
|
10 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-01
|
09 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-09.txt |
2017-09-01
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-01
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-09-01
|
09 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-08-31
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2017-08-31
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-08-31
|
08 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-08.txt |
2017-08-31
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-31
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-08-31
|
08 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-08-01
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2017-07-06
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-07-06
|
07 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Eric Rescorla has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2017-07-06
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-07-06
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I've checked whether this is consistent with email use and it seems to be. Note that RFC 2392 says: The Content-ID of … [Ballot comment] I've checked whether this is consistent with email use and it seems to be. Note that RFC 2392 says: The Content-ID of a MIME body part is required to be globally unique. and this document only requires it to be unique within a message. I don't think the difference in restrictions makes any real world difference, because I don't think applications enforce uniqueness of Content-IDs between different messages. |
2017-07-06
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2017-07-06
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I'm following EKR's discuss on the interoperability / backward compatibility implications. |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] I'm a little surprised that the document didn't end up with any text detailing the historical context for formally adding this mechanism. I … [Ballot comment] I'm a little surprised that the document didn't end up with any text detailing the historical context for formally adding this mechanism. I would expect to see some discussion explaining that the use of Content-ID as a SIP header field has been inferred as acceptable for years, and that so many IETF participants had taken it as given that Content-ID was *already* a registered SIP header field that it appears in examples in (for example) RFCs 5368 and 6080. While I think the document would serve its intended purpose as-is, I believe that more explanatory text in the Introduction section to clarify that this is an attempt to formalize already-assumed (and likely deployed) behavior -- rather than simply casting it as a minor optimization -- would go a long way towards dealing with Eric's concerns. |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Per the Gen-ART review, the references to RFC 5368 and RFC 6442 should be informative rather than normative. |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot discuss] This document really needs some discussion of the interoperability implications of this change. Assuming I understand correctly, it is not possible to use … [Ballot discuss] This document really needs some discussion of the interoperability implications of this change. Assuming I understand correctly, it is not possible to use this mechanism with any existing content type, because receiving implementations will expect to see a multipart and thus refuse to accept the message. Is that correct? If so, it seems like a limitation which needs to be called out explicitly |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] This document seems rather gratuitous to me. I agree it's somewhat of a misfeature not to be able to have Content-ID in the … [Ballot comment] This document seems rather gratuitous to me. I agree it's somewhat of a misfeature not to be able to have Content-ID in the SIP headers, but as the examples in this document make clear, there's a straightforward workaround. It's unclear to me that there is actually sufficient benefit to this mechanism to publishing a standards track document with this change. |
2017-07-05
|
07 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2017-07-04
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-07-04
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-07-04
|
07 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list. |
2017-07-03
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-06-30
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-06-29
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2017-06-29
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2017-06-29
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-06-28
|
07 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2017-06-28
|
07 | Ben Campbell | Ballot has been issued |
2017-06-28
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-06-28
|
07 | Ben Campbell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-06-28
|
07 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-06-28
|
07 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was changed |
2017-06-28
|
07 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-06-28
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-06-28
|
07 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-07.txt |
2017-06-28
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-28
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-06-28
|
07 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-27
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-07-06 |
2017-06-27
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-06-27
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2017-06-24
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Radia Perlman. |
2017-06-22
|
06 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list. |
2017-06-22
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-06-22
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Header Fields registry on the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/ a single, new Header Field is to be registered as follows: Header Name: Content-ID Compact: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Services Operator 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2017-06-19
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell |
2017-06-19
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell |
2017-06-15
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2017-06-15
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2017-06-15
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2017-06-15
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2017-06-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-06-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ben@nostrum.com, Jean Mahoney , sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org, mahoney@nostrum.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ben@nostrum.com, Jean Mahoney , sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org, mahoney@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Content-ID header field in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol Core WG (sipcore) to consider the following document: - 'Content-ID header field in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' as 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 2017-06-27. 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 specifies the Content-ID header field for usage in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). The document also updates RFC 5621, to enable a Content-ID URL to reference a complete message-body and metadata provided by some additional SIP header fields. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2017-06-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-06-13
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Last call was requested |
2017-06-13
|
06 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2017-06-13
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-06-13
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-06-13
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-06-05
|
06 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-06.txt |
2017-06-05
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-05
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-06-05
|
06 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-30
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke |
2017-05-30
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke |
2017-05-16
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Requested Last Call review by ARTART |
2017-05-16
|
05 | Ben Campbell | This is my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05. I have some points I would like discuss before going to IETF last call. Note: I plan to … This is my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05. I have some points I would like discuss before going to IETF last call. Note: I plan to request an Art-Art review on this draft to focus on the MIME usage aspects. ----- Discussion Points: - I have some difficulty seeing the difference between "the body and related metadata" and "the SIP message". I realize you have the more MIME-specific header fields in mind when you say "metadata". But any SIP header field could be considered metadata. The main point of that question is, as used in MIME, Content-Id is intended to label a body part. Message-Id is used to label the whole message. Aren't we talking about the whole message here? - Is there an expectation for the SIP Content-ID header field value to be referenced from outside the SIP message? If so, what are the uniqueness expectations? Note that for MIME, Content-ID is expected to be globally unique. Is that the case here? If the Content-ID is _not_ expected to be referenced from outside of the SIP message that contains it, then we have a sort of degenerate case where it always identifies _this_ message regardless of the value. Does that value ever need to change? Does that suggest any guidance on how to construct values? Specific comments: 1.4 and children: These examples seem like fairly weak motivation, since I assume in both cases one could still have just put a single body-part inside a multipart envelope. That seems more an "inconvenience" than a "problem". Are there any known use-cases where that would not be possible? (This is certainly not a show stopper; we are allowed to solve inconveniences. But if there are any stronger motivations that could be documented, they might save questions down the road.) 3.2, 2nd note: How has the msg-Id been simplified, and why? 3.4 and children: An example or two would be extremely helpful. Editorial: 1.1, 3rd paragraph: Citation to RFC5621 is not a link in the PDF version. 1.2 and 1.3: A sentence or two that more strongly contrasts "body part" vs "message-body" would be helpful. I think that some people will think of a message-body as still a body-part. 1.5, Note: Seems like the note belongs in the problem statement more than the solution. |
2017-05-15
|
05 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? Proposed Standard, which is indicated in the header. This draft updates RFC 5621, which is Proposed Standard, and registers the Content-ID header field, which requires standards action. (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 specifies the Content-ID header field for usage in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to identify a complete message-body of a SIP message. The document also updates RFC 5621, to enable a Content-ID URL to reference a complete message-body and metadata provided by some additional SIP header fields. Working Group Summary Discussions about the Content-ID header field started in the ECRIT working group when the group identified cases where a request with a single message body also needs to include a Content-ID header field in the SIP message header to refer to the MIME entity, but the Content-ID header field was not actually a SIP header field, surprising some working group members. The authors brought the issue to the SIPCORE working group. There was consensus that this was an oversight in SIP. There was a discussion about perhaps adding all the Content-* MIME header fields as SIP header fields for completeness (SIP already has extended the some of the MIME header fields), but the working group decided to focus only on Content-ID since there wasn't a clear need for some of the others like Content-Transfer-Encoding. Document Quality This short document received detailed review from a handful of working group participants. The authors incorporated received feedback. Although the Document Shepherd is not aware of implementations, the Content-ID header field will be useful when transporting data for location conveyance and emergency calls. There may be implementations of Content-ID as a SIP header field since RFC 5368 shows Content-ID as a SIP header field in its examples. Personnel Jean Mahoney is the document shepherd. Ben Campbell is the responsible area director. (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 shepherd thoroughly reviewed the last versions of the draft. The document is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. The document requires no specialized expertise beyond that possessed by regular participants in the SIPCORE working group. (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (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. Each author has confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No disclosure has been filed. (9) 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? Most of the regular WG participants reviewed the document, (although SIPCORE is not large), and there were no dissent. There was consensus that a lack of a Content-ID header field was an oversight in SIP. (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. idnits 2.14.01 was run, and no issues were found. The Shepherd checked the draft against http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html. No issues were found with the draft. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review requirements are triggered by this document, aside from any required by IANA process. (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 WG considers it unnecessary. This document updates RFC 5621, and this is captured in the header, abstract and introduction. (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). The IANA Considerations section clearly identifies the "Header Fields" sub-registry within the "Session Initiation Protocols" registry, and provides the values for a new row in that sub-registry. (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 adds a new entry to an existing IANA registry. The registration procedure is Standards Action, which this document is following. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Chris Newman's ABNF Validator, available at http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/tools, was run. The tool complained about undefined rules. However, those rules are defined in RFC 5322 and RFC 3261, and the document references those rules. |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Shepherding AD changed to Ben Campbell |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | This document now replaces draft-holmberg-sipcore-content-id instead of None |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Changed document writeup |
2017-05-10
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2017-05-08
|
05 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05.txt |
2017-05-08
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-08
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-05-08
|
05 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-08
|
04 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-04.txt |
2017-05-08
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-08
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-05-08
|
04 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-03
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Notification list changed to Jean Mahoney <mahoney@nostrum.com> |
2017-05-03
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Document shepherd changed to Jean Mahoney |
2017-04-27
|
03 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-03.txt |
2017-04-27
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-27
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-04-27
|
03 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-25
|
02 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-02.txt |
2017-04-25
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-25
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-04-25
|
02 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-23
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Added to session: IETF-98: sipcore Thu-1520 |
2017-03-23
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-03-08
|
01 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-01.txt |
2017-03-08
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-08
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Ivo Sedlacek |
2017-03-08
|
01 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-30
|
00 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-00.txt |
2017-01-30
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-01-30
|
00 | Christer Holmberg | Set submitter to "Christer Holmberg ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: sipcore-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-01-30
|
00 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |