Clarifications for When to Use the name-addr Production in SIP Messages
draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: ben@nostrum.com, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance@ietf.org, br@brianrosen.net, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP messages' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP
   messages'
  (draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Session Initiation Protocol Core Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov and Ben Campbell.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   RFC3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains
   the "name-addr / addr-spec" alternative to use name-addr when certain
   characters appear.  Unfortunately it expressed the constraints with
   prose copied into each header field definition, and at least one
   header field was missed.  Further, the constraint has not been copied
   into documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the
   alternative.

   This document updates RFC3261 to state the constraint generically,
   and clarifies that the constraint applies to all SIP header fields
   where there is a choice between using name-addr or addr-spec.  It
   also updates those extension SIP header fields that use the
   alternative to clarify that the constraint applies (RFCs 3325, 3515,
   3892, 4508, 5002, 5318, 5360, and 5502).


Working Group Summary

  This defect in 3261 has plagued SIP for some time, and is responsible 
  for several errata.  The working group was universal in it’s desire to 
  fix this once and for all.
  

Document Quality

  The document has been well reviewed within the SIP working group. 
  A number of improvements have been made based on reviewer comments.  
  The document is short, to the point, and clear.

Personnel

  Brian Rosen is the document shepherd. Ben Campbell is the responsible
  area director.

RFC Editor Note