URNs for the Alert-Info Header Field of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, salud mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, salud chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'URNs for the Alert-Info Header Field of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-14.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'URNs for the Alert-Info Header Field of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' (draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-14.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Sip ALerting for User Devices Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Richard Barnes and Alissa Cooper. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns/
Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) supports the capability to provide a reference to a specific rendering to be used by the UA when the user is alerted. This is done using the Alert-Info header field. However, providing a reference (typically a URL) addresses only a specific network resource with specific rendering properties. This document defines a new namespace of URNs for use in Alert-Info header fields. The URNs are defined to describe characteristics of the incoming call, characteristics of how the call is being handled at the callee, and rendering characteristics of the desired signal. The URNs can be combined to provide complex descriptions of the intended signal. Provisions are made for private extensions that can describe additional signal characteristics and additional subcategorization of standardized characteristics. Detailed resolution rules are provided to ensure that a renderer provides the best representation that it can of the signaler's intention. 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? There is solid consensus in the SALUD WG of the value of this work and the usefulness of this document. A large set of requirements has been identified to ensure that the proposed URNs can be used successfully in converting existing telephone switches to operate using SIP. 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? Deutsche Telekom has indicated that they intend to implement this document. An important review of the proposed URN namespace was done by Alfred Hoenes, which identified a number of deficiencies in the original proposal (which have been eliminated). After revision, the URN namespace definition was presented on the urn-nid mailing list, and no objections were raised. Many reviews have been done by the authors, and a final review by the Document Shepherd, which convince the WG that there are no substantive issues remaining. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? The Document Shepherd is Christer Holmberg. The Responsible Area Director is Richard Barnes.