Indicating WebSocket Protocol as a Transport in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF)
draft-salgueiro-dispatch-websocket-sipclf-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: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Indicating WebSocket Protocol as a Transport in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF)' to Informational RFC (draft-salgueiro-dispatch-websocket-sipclf-02.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Indicating WebSocket Protocol as a Transport in the Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF)'
  (draft-salgueiro-dispatch-websocket-sipclf-02.txt) as Informational RFC

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Richard Barnes.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-salgueiro-dispatch-websocket-sipclf/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary:

RFC 7118 specifies a WebSocket sub-protocol as a reliable real-time
transport mechanism between Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) entities
to enable usage of SIP in web-oriented deployments.  This document
updates the SIP Common Log Format (CLF), defined in RFC 6873, with a new
"Transport Flag" for such SIP WebSocket transport.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there 
decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

With the SIPCLF WG recently closed, this document was not contextually
relevant within any active WG charters.  The narrow scope of the
document didn't warrant creation of a new WG, so RAI ADs and DISPATCH WG
chairs agreed that an AD sponsored individual draft was the proper
course of action.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the
specification?  Are there any reviewers that merit special mention 
as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in 
important changes or a conclusion that the document had no 
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other 
expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media 
Type review, on what date was the request posted?

SIP CLF Transport Flag values must be registered via the IETF Review
method described in RFC5226.  This document updates RFC 6873 by defining
a new SIP CLF "Transport Flag" value for WebSocket ('W').

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Vijay Gurbani is the Document Shepherd.  Richard Barnes is the
Responsible AD.

RFC Editor Note