A SIP Event Package for Subscribing to Changes to an HTTP Resource
draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2010-07-21
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2010-07-20
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2010-07-20
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2010-07-12
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2010-07-12
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
2010-02-18
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
2010-02-11
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-08
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-02-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-02-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2010-02-08
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-02-04
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-07.txt |
2010-02-04
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-04
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2010-02-04
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
2010-02-04
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2010-02-04
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2010-02-04
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2010-02-04
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] When section 3.3 is removed, you will need to remove references 14 and 15. (Assuming you really want to discard 3.3 and not … [Ballot comment] When section 3.3 is removed, you will need to remove references 14 and 15. (Assuming you really want to discard 3.3 and not move it to an appendix to retain the history.) |
2010-02-04
|
07 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2010-02-04
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2010-02-03
|
07 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2010-02-03
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This discuss is a placeholder for changes proposed by the author in response to Tina Tsou's secdir review. |
2010-02-03
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2010-02-03
|
07 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2010-02-03
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-03
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnan on 2 Feb 2010 made some suggestions to simplify the document. Please consider them. |
2010-02-03
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2010-02-03
|
07 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2010-02-03
|
07 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2010-02-02
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2010-02-01
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2010-02-01
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-02-01
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-02-01
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: 'Scott Lawrence <scottlawrenc@avaya.com> is the document shepherd. This is *not* a returning item, despite what the datatracker says.' added by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-02-01
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-02-01
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | Telechat date was changed to 2010-02-04 from 2010-02-18 by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-02-01
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2010-01-31
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tina Tsou. |
2010-01-29
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-02-18 by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-01-26
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Action #1: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the FUTURE "Link Relation registry" as defined by draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07 … IANA comments: Action #1: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the FUTURE "Link Relation registry" as defined by draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07 Relation Name: monitor Description: Refers to a resource that can be used to monitor changes in an HTTP resource. Reference: [RFC-roach-sip-http-subscribe-06] Relation Name: monitor-group Description: Refers to a resource that can be used to monitor changes in a specified group of HTTP resources. Reference: [RFC-roach-sip-http-subscribe-06] Action #2: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Types Namespace" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-events Package Name Type Contact Reference ----------------| ---------------- | ---------------------------- | --------- http-monitor | Package | Adam Roach, adam@nostrum.com | [RFC-roach-sip-http- subscribe-06] Action #3: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters Header Field Parameter Name Values Reference ---------------- | ------------------- | ---------- | --------- Event | body | yes | [RFC-roach-sip-http-subscribe-06] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2010-01-09
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2010-01-09
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2010-01-04
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2010-01-04
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2010-01-01
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | Last Call was requested by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-01-01
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-01-01
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2010-01-01
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2010-01-01
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2010-01-01
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-12-21
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Document Shepherd: Scott Lawrence I have personally reviewed a few versions of this document, including the latest (06) draft. I believe this version is ready for IESG review and publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document is not the product of a Working Group - it began as an individual submission from the author and got considerable attention from experts in the HTTP and SIP communities. Based on discussion on the DISPATCH working group list during the summer of 2009, a consensus was reached that it was close enough to complete that a WG was not needed. A mailing list for interested parties to help finalize the document was established in early August 09, which produced a few additional versions of the draft. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? I believe that the draft has had sufficient review from both the SIP and HTTP protocol perspectives, and that it adequately provides advice to implementors regarding operational and security issues. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. I have no outstanding concerns with this document. (1.e) 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? There seems to be broad consensus that the document is useful. I have seen no objections to the concept or to the particulars of this embodiment of that concept during the discussions (some questions, but no opposition). The discussions over the last few months have mostly clarified and extended the suggested functionality to expand its applicability. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, the document was verified using idnits 2.11.15. Note that idnits complains about lack of the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate. This can be fixed by the RFC Editor. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The references are split into separate normative and informative sections appropriately. There is one normative reference to an Internet Draft, which is also intended to be standards track : [9] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06 (work in progress), July 2009. at this writing, that draft is in the state: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The document does contain an appropriate IANA considerations section, which adds entries to registries that either already exist or are established by the normative dependency described above. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There is one ABNF definition in the document. It validates correctly. (1.k) 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 defines a mechanism whereby the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Framework can be used to provide notification of changes to the state of resources available through the Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP). This facilitates the development of applications that provide near real time updates to information through HTTP without frequent polling or continuously open transport connections. Working Group Summary This is not a Working Group document - it is an individual submission, but has received review from participants active in the SIP and HTTP communities. Based on discussion on the DISPATCH working group list during the summer of 2009, a consensus was reached that it was close enough to complete that a Working Group was not needed, but a separate list [1] was created to complete the work. Document Quality There is not yet significant implementation of this protocol, but it has been incorporated as a key component in the SIP Forum User Agent Configuration Recommendation (currently in SIP Forum Last Call); a number of implementations of that recommendation are believed to be in progress. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-http-events/current/maillist.html |
2009-12-21
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | State Change Notice email list have been change to adam@nostrum.com, scottlawrenc@avaya.com, draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe@tools.ietf.org from adam@nostrum.com, draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe@tools.ietf.org |
2009-12-21
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: 'Scott Lawrence <scottlawrenc@avaya.com> is the document shepherd.' added by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-12-18
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-06.txt |
2009-12-15
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-12-15
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2009-12-02
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-05.txt |
2009-11-30
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-04.txt |
2009-11-25
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-03.txt |
2009-11-24
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | Draft Added by Alexey Melnikov in state AD is watching |
2009-07-07
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-02.txt |
2009-01-08
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-01.txt |
2008-11-20
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-00.txt |