Skip to main content

Diversion Indication in SIP
RFC 5806

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
11 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2018-12-20
11 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This RFC, which contains the text of an Internet Draft that was submitted originally to the …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This RFC, which contains the text of an Internet Draft that was submitted originally to the SIP Working Group, is being published now for the historical record and to provide a reference for later Informational RFCs. The original Abstract follows.

This document proposes an extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). This extension provides the ability for the called SIP user agent to identify from whom the call was diverted and why the call was diverted. The extension defines a general header, Diversion, which conveys the diversion information from other SIP user agents and proxies to the called user agent.

This extension allows enhanced support for various features, including Unified Messaging, Third-Party Voicemail, and Automatic Call Distribution (ACD). SIP user agents and SIP proxies that receive diversion information may use this as supplemental information for feature invocation decisions. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.')
2015-10-14
11 (System) Notify list changed from slevy@geom.umn.edu, jyang@synoptics.com, bbyerly@us.ibm.com, draft-levy-sip-diversion@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org to bbyerly@us.ibm.com, slevy@geom.umn.edu, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, jyang@synoptics.com
2012-08-22
11 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko
2010-03-16
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-16
11 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5806' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-15
11 (System) RFC published
2010-02-02
11 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-11.txt
2010-01-15
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-12-24
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2009-12-24
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-12-07
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-12-07
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-12-07
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-12-04
11 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-12-03
2009-12-03
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Cindy Morgan
2009-12-03
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2009-12-03
11 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I converted my Discuss issues to an email to the RFC Editor as follows:

Hi,

During IESG review I had the following comments …
[Ballot comment]
I converted my Discuss issues to an email to the RFC Editor as follows:

Hi,

During IESG review I had the following comments on this document.

I don't object to the publication of this material as a Historic RFC, but I agree with the point made by Robert in his initial email to you about the "voice" used in the draft. Starting from the first line of the Abstract, this document reads like a current proposal for a protocol solution.

Although the Historic classification should make it clear that there is no intention for implementation or standardisation, I regret that some people might not notice this "subtlety".

If considerable updates to the text are not feasible (effort, time, etc.) I would suggest:
- a minor rework of the Abstract
  - include the note that is present at the start of
    the Introduction
- consider Jari's suggestion to move the substance of the IESG note
  into the Introduction

Would certainly appreciate it if you could take this into consideration as you advance the document.

Thanks,
Adrian
2009-12-03
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot discuss]
2009-12-03
11 Amy Vezza [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Amy Vezza
2009-12-03
11 Cullen Jennings [Ballot discuss]
2009-12-03
11 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cullen Jennings
2009-12-02
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Adrian Farrel
2009-12-02
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2009-12-02
11 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
I don't object to the publication of this material as a Historic RFC, but I agree with the point made by Robert in …
[Ballot discuss]
I don't object to the publication of this material as a Historic RFC, but I agree with the point made by Robert in his initial email to the RFC Editor about the "voice" used in the draft. Starting from the first line of the Abstract, this document reads like a current proposal for a protocol solution.

Although the Historic classificaiton should make it clear that there is no intention for implementation or standardisation, I regret that some people might not notice this "subtlty".

If considerable updates to the text are not feasible (effort, time, etc.) I would suggest:
- a minor rework of the Abstract
  - include the note that is present at the start of
    the Introduction
- consider Jari's suggestion to move the substance of the IESG note
  into the Introduction
2009-12-02
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-12-01
11 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-11-30
11 Robert Sparks Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-12-03 by Robert Sparks
2009-11-19
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-11-19
11 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-11-18
11 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-11-18
11 Amanda Baber IANA questions:

Should the Diversion header be registered somewhere? Does section 10.1 need a new registry? This doc doesn't have an IC section.
2009-11-18
11 Cullen Jennings
[Ballot discuss]
I think we need to talk about this one a bunch. The IESG note about 4244 does not seem right quite right - …
[Ballot discuss]
I think we need to talk about this one a bunch. The IESG note about 4244 does not seem right quite right - 3325 was the primary work that came out of this thought I agree that later 4244 also covers this.

Let me provide a bit of background. Cisco was doing work with cable labs and came up with something close to this draft. Cisco then submitted it to the IETF and in the mean time Cisco implemented it their gateways. The draft was very controversial at IETF for a variety of reasons largely technical. In the meantime, if you wanted call-id to work (which everyone did want) and you were using cisco gateways (which had the bulk of the market share at that time) you pretty much needed to do this to work. So lots of vendors implemented. As the discussion continued at IETF, effectively 3325 was formed by taking the parts of this draft that people could agree on and adding a security section that we could sneak past the IESG on some sort of bogus private used in walled gardens pretext. As you can imagine that pretext turned out to be a disaster in the long run. After 3325 was published, many people felt folks that had done the pre standard implementation of this draft should migrate to 33245 and we would have interoperability - many did migrate and some did not. Later 4244 added in more functionality that 3325 did not have and had been in this draft. The IETF also defined 4474 for call-id which is the only solutions of these that is usable on the internet. (as a side note I am author of some of the text in this draft, 3325, 4244, and 4474). At this point in time, the sheer number of different solutions to the caller-id problem is a significant interoperability problem. The IETF is working on a 4244bis draft as a WG item and discussing work on calling and called part id in WG meetings. My understanding of Cisco position on this topic is that thought Cisco is still the primary user of this approach, Cisco does not believe it would be helpful to the internet, or even Cisco, to publish this even as an historic RFC. It has generated much discussion for many years inside Cisco.  People from multiple other vendors, such as Microsoft, have strongly suggested that this draft should be updated with a version of this draft roughly says whatever you do don't use this - go do what the IETF standards track recommends.  I'd like to note that the reason the author sent this is to the RFC Ed is that Joel Halpern asked him to submit it and somehow between Steve and Joel, Steve was under the impression that Joel was the Chair of the IETF so did it.

I also note this draft has changed the syntax from earlier version that were widely implemented so I'm not sure how much it does reflect the historic code base. The draft is in pretty sad state and I wonder at things like two of the original authors being removed and the spelling mistakes that are hard to imagine anyone other than me making - my favorite being "Inended status".

In summary, I believe publishing an RFC that is an alternative to the standards track RFCs for the caller-id problem is harmful to interoperability and this should not be published.
2009-11-18
11 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-11-18
11 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-11-18
11 Jari Arkko [Ballot comment]
The file header says:

  Inended status: Historic

and you meant "Intended status", of course.
2009-11-18
11 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
Could we get the RFC editor and authors to agree to put the IESG note
to the body of the document, in which …
[Ballot discuss]
Could we get the RFC editor and authors to agree to put the IESG note
to the body of the document, in which case no note would be needed?
2009-11-18
11 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-11-18
11 Jari Arkko [Ballot comment]
The file header says:

  Inended status: Historic

and you meant "Intended status", of course.
2009-11-11
11 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
Current IESG note says:

  This RFC contains an early alternate proposal that was not chosen
  by the SIP working group when …
[Ballot comment]
Current IESG note says:

  This RFC contains an early alternate proposal that was not chosen
  by the SIP working group when creating the solution specified
  in RFC 4244 "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
  for Request History Information".

I suggest some edits:

  This document contains an early proposal to the IETF SIP Working
  Group that was not chosen; the solution that was chosen can be
  found in RFC 4244 "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol
  (SIP) for Request History Information".
2009-11-11
11 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-11-09
11 Robert Sparks Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-11-19 by Robert Sparks
2009-11-09
11 Robert Sparks State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Robert Sparks
2009-11-09
11 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2009-11-09
11 Robert Sparks Ballot has been issued by Robert Sparks
2009-11-09
11 Robert Sparks Created "Approve" ballot
2009-11-09
11 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-11-09
11 (System) Last call text was added
2009-11-09
11 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-10-06
11 Robert Sparks Review still in progress - have an question outstanding to the author.
2009-10-06
11 Robert Sparks Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-10-08 by Robert Sparks
2009-09-22
11 Robert Sparks Telechat date was changed to 2009-10-08 from 2009-09-24 by Robert Sparks
2009-09-22
11 Robert Sparks Note field has been cleared by Robert Sparks
2009-09-17
11 Russ Housley Note field has been cleared by Russ Housley
2009-09-17
11 Russ Housley Responsible AD has been changed to Robert Sparks from Russ Housley
2009-09-17
11 Russ Housley Area acronymn has been changed to rai from gen
2009-09-14
11 Cindy Morgan
This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as a
Historic Independent Submission: draft-levy-sip-diversion-10.txt.

Please let us know if this document conflicts …
This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as a
Historic Independent Submission: draft-levy-sip-diversion-10.txt.

Please let us know if this document conflicts with the IETF standards
process or other work being done in the IETF community.

Four week timeout expires on 12 October 2009.


Diversion Indication in SIP

Note: This draft is being published as an RFC for the historical
record and to provide a reference for later Informational RFCs.

This document proposes an extension to the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP). This extension provides the ability for
the called SIP user agent to identify from whom the call
was diverted and why the call was diverted.

The extension defines a general header, Diversion, which
conveys the diversion information from other SIP user agents
and proxies to the called user agent.

This extension allows enhanced support for various features,
including Unified Messaging, Third-Party Voicemail, and Automatic
Call Distribution (ACD). SIP user agents and SIP proxies which
receive diversion information may use this as supplemental
information for feature invocation decisions.
2009-09-14
11 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2009-07-28
10 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-10.txt
2009-05-04
09 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-09.txt
2004-08-26
08 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-08.txt
2004-01-19
07 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-07.txt
2003-07-28
06 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-06.txt
2003-01-07
05 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-05.txt
2002-06-04
04 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-04.txt
2001-10-26
03 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-03.txt
2001-05-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-02.txt
2000-11-22
01 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-01.txt
2000-10-10
00 (System) New version available: draft-levy-sip-diversion-00.txt