Technical Summary:
This document specifies the SIP P-Private-Network-Indication P-header
used by the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). The
P-Private-Network-Indication indicates that the message is part of
the message traffic of a private network, and identifies that private
network. A private network indication allows nodes to treat private
network traffic according to a different set of rules than the set
applicable to public network traffic.
Working Group Summary:
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
document?
This document has been discussed in the DISPATCH WG. The DISPATCH WG
does not progress any documents as WG documents. The DISPATCH WG
selects one the following actions for contributions to the WG that have been
adequately reviewed and discussed:
- None in the case of work items for which there is inadequate interest or
feedback indicates that the work should not be progressed (e.g., it's a
bad idea or not within scope for RAI area or IETF)
- New work item in currently chartered WG
- New WG or mini-WG in the case where the deliverable is likely a
single document - e.g. a new SIP header
- IETF official BoF - typically for work items that are of broad interest
and potential impact within the RAI area and across areas.
- Individual/AD sponsored - for items limited in scope and applicability
Individual/AD sponsored was the consensus of the DISPATCH WG
for this document and the AD(s) agreed to progress the document.
There was no controversy around this decision.
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?
This document is required for the 3GPP/IMS specifications, thus any
vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this specification.
John Elwell thoroughly reviewed earlier versions of this document.
In addition, James Yu provided a detailed review and Paul Kyzivat
reviewed one of the more recent versions.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.
Richard Barnes is the Responsible AD.