Skip to main content

Interworking SIP and Intelligent Network (IN) Applications
RFC 3976

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
02 (System) Notify list changed from ,  to (None)
2005-02-01
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2005-02-01
02 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 3976' added by Amy Vezza
2005-01-20
02 (System) RFC published
2004-08-12
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2004-08-11
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2004-08-11
02 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2004-08-11
02 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2004-08-11
02 Allison Mankin State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Allison Mankin
2004-07-31
02 Allison Mankin [Note]: 'Approved with standard iesg note to rfc editor note' added by Allison Mankin
2004-03-19
02 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2004-03-19
02 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-03-18
2004-03-18
02 Bert Wijnen [Ballot comment]
There are quite a set of example that use
      lucent.com
And that probably should use
      example.com
2004-03-18
02 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2004-03-18
02 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2004-03-17
02 Steven Bellovin
[Ballot comment]
If this were a standards track document, my evaluation would be a DISCUSS, because the Security Considerations section is inadequate.  It says that …
[Ballot comment]
If this were a standards track document, my evaluation would be a DISCUSS, because the Security Considerations section is inadequate.  It says that some messages "must be secured", but says nothing of what sort of security is needed.  It says nothing of authorization requirements or mechanisms for the SIN service, let alone how SIP-level authentication information is conveyed across the IN so that a remote SIP proxy can make its own authorization decisions.  And it speaks of using  SIP security "if the need be", without explaining how that decision is made, or what the risks are if any of these security mechanisms are not used.

For Section 3.4, see draft-burger-sipping-netann for a way to do announcements in SIP.  (Note: that's not a standards-track document.)

Nit: "egress" is not a verb.
2004-03-17
02 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin
2004-03-17
02 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2004-03-17
02 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie
2004-03-17
02 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
My reading is the [2], [8], and [9] are all needed to make sense of the SIP/BCSM
mapping.  Only [2] is normative, though; …
[Ballot comment]
My reading is the [2], [8], and [9] are all needed to make sense of the SIP/BCSM
mapping.  Only [2] is normative, though; I'd suggest that all three of these would
need to be normative.

Have we asked Scott Bradner to check with ITU-T on this, or is otherwise known to
be something they've reviewed?
2004-03-17
02 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
My reading is the [2], [8], and [9] are all needed to make sense of the SIP/BCSM
mapping.  Only [2] is normative, though; …
[Ballot comment]
My reading is the [2], [8], and [9] are all needed to make sense of the SIP/BCSM
mapping.  Only [2] is normative, though; I'd suggest that all three of these would
need to be normative.

Have we asked Scott to check with ITU-T on this, or is otherwise known to
be something they've reviewed?
2004-03-17
02 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2004-03-17
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Russ Housley
2004-03-17
02 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2004-03-16
02 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot comment]
Reviewed for GEN-ART by Mark Allman.
2004-03-16
02 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2004-03-15
02 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot comment]
The "Full Copyright Statement" has been truncated, but I suppose that the text will be replaced by the RFC Editor with something appropriate.
2004-03-15
02 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-03-15
02 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin
2004-03-15
02 Allison Mankin Ballot has been issued by Allison Mankin
2004-03-15
02 Allison Mankin Created "Approve" ballot
2004-03-15
02 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-03-15
02 (System) Last call text was added
2004-03-15
02 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-03-11
02 Allison Mankin Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-03-18 by Allison Mankin
2004-03-11
02 Allison Mankin State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Allison Mankin
2004-03-11
02 Allison Mankin
[Note]: 'On several occasions the SIP and SIPPING WGs stated that this was not an end-run.  Issues remained:  no SIP-ite could review the IN stuff; …
[Note]: 'On several occasions the SIP and SIPPING WGs stated that this was not an end-run.  Issues remained:  no SIP-ite could review the IN stuff; what org will think we''re end-running them when it comes out?  Some diligence did not identify one, but TSV has been burned before.  New  iesg / rfc-ed model means these issues have much less weight on IETF.' added by Allison Mankin
2003-12-24
02 Allison Mankin State Change Notice email list have been change to , from ,
2003-12-24
02 Allison Mankin State Change Notice email list have been change to , from ,
2003-12-24
02 Allison Mankin State Changes to AD Evaluation from Expert Review by Allison Mankin
2003-12-24
02 Allison Mankin Gave up on the external reviewers.  Will conduct the review myself, suitable to an RFC Editor product...
2003-12-24
02 Allison Mankin [Note]: 'Under review as of August.
Contact Allison for more info.
Responsible: mankin' has been cleared by Allison Mankin
2002-10-08
02 Allison Mankin State Changes to Expert Review  -- 0 from Expert Review  -- External Party by mankin
2002-10-01
02 Allison Mankin Under review as of August.
Contact Allison for more info.
2002-10-01
02 Allison Mankin by mankin
2002-09-20
02 Allison Mankin Under review as of August.
Contact Allison for more info.
2002-09-20
02 Allison Mankin responsible has been changed to mankin from Allison
2002-09-20
02 Allison Mankin State Changes to Expert Review  -- External Party from Pre AD Evaluation by mankin
2002-06-30
02 Allison Mankin Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None
2002-06-26
02 Stephen Coya Draft Added by scoya
2002-06-21
02 (System) New version available: draft-gurbani-sin-02.txt
2002-05-28
01 (System) New version available: draft-gurbani-sin-01.txt
2002-04-16
00 (System) New version available: draft-gurbani-sin-00.txt