%% You should probably cite rfc6044 instead of this I-D. @techreport{mohali-diversion-history-info-07, number = {draft-mohali-diversion-history-info-07}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohali-diversion-history-info/07/}, author = {Marianne Mohali}, title = {{Mapping and Interworking of Diversion Information between Diversion and History-Info Headers in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)}}, pagetotal = 24, year = 2010, month = jul, day = 2, abstract = {Although the SIP History-Info header is the solution adopted in IETF, the non-standard Diversion header is nevertheless widely implemented and used for conveying call-diversion-related information in SIP signaling. This document describes a recommended interworking guideline between the Diversion header and the History-Info header to handle call diversion information. In addition, an interworking policy is proposed to manage the headers' coexistence. The History-Info header is described in RFC 4244 and the non-standard Diversion header is described, as Historic, in RFC 5806. Since the Diversion header is used in many existing network implementations for the transport of call diversion information, its interworking with the SIP History-Info standardized solution is needed. This work is intended to enable the migration from non- standard implementations and deployment toward IETF specification- based implementations and deployment. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.}, }