Diversion Indication in SIP
draft-levy-sip-diversion-11

I converted my Discuss issues to an email to the RFC Editor as follows:

Hi,

During IESG review I had the following comments on this document.

I don't object to the publication of this material as a Historic RFC, but I agree with the point made by Robert in his initial email to you about the "voice" used in the draft. Starting from the first line of the Abstract, this document reads like a current proposal for a protocol solution.

Although the Historic classification should make it clear that there is no intention for implementation or standardisation, I regret that some people might not notice this "subtlety".

If considerable updates to the text are not feasible (effort, time, etc.) I would suggest:
- a minor rework of the Abstract
  - include the note that is present at the start of
    the Introduction
- consider Jari's suggestion to move the substance of the IESG note
  into the Introduction

Would certainly appreciate it if you could take this into consideration as you advance the document.

Thanks,
Adrian

The file header says:

   Inended status: Historic

and you meant "Intended status", of course.

Current IESG note says:

   This RFC contains an early alternate proposal that was not chosen
   by the SIP working group when creating the solution specified
   in RFC 4244 "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
   for Request History Information".

I suggest some edits:

   This document contains an early proposal to the IETF SIP Working
   Group that was not chosen; the solution that was chosen can be
   found in RFC 4244 "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol
   (SIP) for Request History Information".