Skip to main content

An INVITE-Initiated Dialog Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
RFC 4235

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
06 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, dean.willis@softarmor.com, rohan@cisco.com to dean.willis@softarmor.com
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Scott Hollenbeck
2005-12-04
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2005-12-04
06 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4235' added by Amy Vezza
2005-11-30
06 (System) RFC published
2005-04-27
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2005-04-26
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2005-04-26
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2005-04-26
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2005-04-24
06 Allison Mankin State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Allison Mankin
2005-04-24
06 Allison Mankin [Note]: 'PROTO Shepherd Gonzalo Camarillo' added by Allison Mankin
2005-04-24
06 Allison Mankin [Note]: 'PROTO Shepherd Gonzalo Camarillo
' added by Allison Mankin
2005-04-16
06 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Scott Hollenbeck
2005-04-14
06 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2005-04-14
06 (System) [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by IESG Secretary
2005-04-14
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza
2005-04-14
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-06.txt
2005-04-14
06 Sam Hartman
[Ballot comment]
This was very well done.  The one thing I'd suggest when doing similar
documents in the future is that you include an explicit …
[Ballot comment]
This was very well done.  The one thing I'd suggest when doing similar
documents in the future is that you include an explicit analysis of
the advice on authorization policy and confirm that the proposed
applications in the introduction are actually compatible with this
advice.
2005-04-14
06 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman
2005-04-14
06 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2005-04-14
06 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2005-04-14
06 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2005-04-13
06 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2005-04-13
06 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie
2005-04-13
06 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
In the introduction:

up, user A's phone rings.  When A picks it up, they here ringing,

--> up, user A's phone rings.  When …
[Ballot comment]
In the introduction:

up, user A's phone rings.  When A picks it up, they here ringing,

--> up, user A's phone rings.  When A picks it up, they hear ringing,

I would find an example in "3.11 State agents" very useful.  In that
same vein, including a session description element in the sample
in 4.2 would be useful. 

In 4.1.6.3, it should probably be clarified whether the MIME type
parameter's changing should trigger an updated session description,
since the "bucket" mime type parameters actually carry things like
codec which are likely to be of interest.

In 4.3, the document says:

  If the value in the new document is
  one higher than the local version number, the local version number is
  increased by one, and the document is processed.  If the value in the
  document is more than one higher than the local version number, the
  local version number is set to the value in the new document, and the
  document is processed.

Am I missing something, or is this equivalent to saying "If the value in
the document is higher than the local version number, the local version
number is set to the value in the new document, and the document is
processed"?  That is, is the incremented by one case actually different?
2005-04-13
06 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2005-04-13
06 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley
2005-04-13
06 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
The description of sip.byeless in section 5.1 is much more clear than
  the description in section 1.  Repeating the first few sentences …
[Ballot comment]
The description of sip.byeless in section 5.1 is much more clear than
  the description in section 1.  Repeating the first few sentences of
  section 5.1 in section 1 would have been helpful to me.
2005-04-13
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2005-04-12
06 Allison Mankin [Note]: 'PROTO Shepherd Gonzalo Camarillo
06 will be on the agenda - schemas fixed' added by Allison Mankin
2005-04-12
06 Allison Mankin [Note]: 'PROTO Shepherd Gonzalo Camarillo' added by Allison Mankin
2005-04-06
06 Michelle Cotton
IANA Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will register a new MIME type, a new XML namespace and schema, and two new media …
IANA Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will register a new MIME type, a new XML namespace and schema, and two new media feature parameters in the SIP
tree.

In the description in section 89, it should probably also say "and schema" as this is also included in the IANA Considerations section.
2005-04-01
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-03-31
2005-03-31
06 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
Since the draft is going to be touched anyway, I didn't make this a DISCUSS, but I'd appreciate the authors' attention to these …
[Ballot comment]
Since the draft is going to be touched anyway, I didn't make this a DISCUSS, but I'd appreciate the authors' attention to these comments from the Gen-Art review by Michael Patton:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a few
things that I'd like to see cleared up before publication.
The first one can be done as a normal part of RFC prep, the
second probably needs some new text, which would need review.


In Section 1, first paragraph, references to RFCs are sometimes done
with the reference number (and not the RFC number) and
sometimes with the RFC number (and not the reference number).
Besides being inconsistent, this makes it hard to notice the
correlation between the various references.  I'd suggest
making ALL the references in the form "RFC3265 [1]" which is
clear and makes it consistent.
There are other places in the doc where RFCs are mentioned without
references.  They should be added.


The last paragraph of the Introduction seemed just a bit sparse to
me.  But, as I'm unfamiliar with the subject area this may
just be my lack of background.  This does suggest that the
paragraph might be improved with a little more explanation.
On the other hand it _is_ the introduction, so it's not
supposed to be complete.
Then, when I get to Section 5 which does have the definitions, I find
myself asking what these have to do with the rest of the
document.  It seems to me that these are general parameters
and not specific to this document.  I think the document needs
to explain what these are for somewhere...


Typos:

Abstract: "an receive notifications" => "and receive notifications"

Section 3.7.1 nearly at the end:
  "the replaced invitation transition transitions to"
=> "the replaced invitation transitions to"

Section 3.7.2: paragraph 4 has an unmatched open paren.

Section 4.1.6.2: second paragraph has an unmatched open paren.

The doubly nested parens at the end of paragraph 2 in Section 5.2 are
confusing, and suggest that that sentence should be rewritten
as several to avoid the nesting.


Random comment:  I would have used Dave instead of Bob and then the VM
mailbox could have been daves-not-here-man... but that joke's probably
US centric...
2005-03-31
06 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2005-03-28
06 Scott Hollenbeck
[Ballot discuss]
It doesn't look like my review comments from January have been addressed:

http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2005-January/000574.html

I just ran the schema found in section 4.4 through …
[Ballot discuss]
It doesn't look like my review comments from January have been addressed:

http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2005-January/000574.html

I just ran the schema found in section 4.4 through the checker again and the errors are still there.

Please change the registrant/change controller info for the requests found in section 8 to either be the IESG or "as designated by the IESG" for a working group.
2005-03-28
06 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2005-03-27
06 Allison Mankin State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Allison Mankin
2005-03-27
06 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin
2005-03-27
06 Allison Mankin Ballot has been issued by Allison Mankin
2005-03-27
06 Allison Mankin Created "Approve" ballot
2005-03-23
06 Allison Mankin Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-03-31 by Allison Mankin
2005-03-23
06 Allison Mankin State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Allison Mankin
2005-03-22
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2005-03-08
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2005-03-08
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2005-03-08
06 Allison Mankin Last Call was requested by Allison Mankin
2005-03-08
06 Allison Mankin State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Allison Mankin
2005-03-08
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2005-03-08
06 (System) Last call text was added
2005-03-08
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2005-03-08
06 Allison Mankin ietf-types review resulted in revision (during January)
2005-01-24
06 Allison Mankin State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Allison Mankin
2005-01-24
06 Allison Mankin Sent to ietf-types and got comment Scott H xml schema needs fixing
2004-12-22
06 Dinara Suleymanova State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Dinara Suleymanova
2004-11-23
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-05.txt
2004-05-25
06 Allison Mankin Draft Added by Allison Mankin
2004-02-17
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-04.txt
2003-10-27
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-03.txt
2003-07-03
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-02.txt
2003-03-05
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-01.txt
2002-06-27
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sipping-dialog-package-00.txt