Skip to main content

Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER Method
RFC 7614

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
03 (System) Notify list changed from draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription.shepherd@ietf.org, pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2015-08-26
03 (System) RFC published
2015-08-19
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-08-13
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-08-05
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-07-08
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-07-07
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2015-07-07
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2015-06-30
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-06-30
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-06-30
03 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-06-30
03 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-06-29
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-06-29
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2015-06-29
03 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-06-29
03 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-06-29
03 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2015-06-25
03 Vijay Gurbani Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani.
2015-06-25
03 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2015-06-25
03 Robert Sparks IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-06-25
03 Robert Sparks New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-03.txt
2015-06-25
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Vincent Roca.
2015-06-25
02 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-06-25
02 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-06-25
02 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-06-24
02 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-06-24
02 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing the SecDir review comments.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=secdir
2015-06-24
02 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-06-24
02 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-06-24
02 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-06-24
02 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-06-23
02 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-06-22
02 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
I'm a Yes, and this specification was mostly clear, but one sentence in the text was hard for me to parse:

  If …
[Ballot comment]
I'm a Yes, and this specification was mostly clear, but one sentence in the text was hard for me to parse:

  If it is important that the UA
  be able to subscribe to any refer state generated by accepting this
  request, the request needs to be formed to limit the number of places
  that it will be accepted to one.
 
Is there a phrasing that's not passive English, says directly who is responsible for doing this, and uses "one" as an adjective?

For example, would be be correct to say:

  If it is important that the UA
  be able to subscribe to any refer state generated by accepting this
  request, the UA needs to form the request so that it will obly be
  accepted in one place.
 
?
2015-06-22
02 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-06-22
02 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-06-22
02 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-06-22
02 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-06-22
02 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-06-18
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2015-06-18
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2015-06-17
02 Ben Campbell Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-06-25
2015-06-17
02 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-06-17
02 Ben Campbell Ballot has been issued
2015-06-17
02 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-06-17
02 Ben Campbell Created "Approve" ballot
2015-06-17
02 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2015-06-17
02 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2015-06-16
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-06-16
02 Pearl Liang
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the Option Tags subregsitry of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters regsitry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/

a new Option tag is to be registered as follows:

Name: explicitsub
Description: This option tag identifies an extension to REFER to suppress the implicit subscription, and provide a URI for an explicit subscription.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, also in the Option Tags subregsitry of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters regsitry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/

another new Option tag is to be registered as follows:

Name: nosub
Description: This option tag identifies an extension to REFER to suppress the implicit subscription, and indicate that no explicit subscription is forthcoming.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the Header Fields subregsitry of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters regsitry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/

a new Header Field is to be registered as follows:

Header Name: Refer-Events-At
compact:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones that need to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2015-06-08
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2015-06-08
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2015-06-05
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca
2015-06-05
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca
2015-06-04
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2015-06-04
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2015-06-03
02 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-06-03
02 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER Method) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol Core
WG (sipcore) to consider the following document:
- 'Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER Method'
  as Proposed
Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-06-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER request, as defined by
  RFC3515, triggers an implicit SIP-Specific Event Notification
  framework subscription.  Conflating the start of the subscription
  with handling the REFER request makes negotiating SUBSCRIBE
  extensions impossible, and complicates avoiding SIP dialog sharing.
  This document defines extensions to REFER to remove the implicit
  subscription and, if desired, replace it with an explicit one.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-06-03
02 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-06-03
02 Ben Campbell Last call was requested
2015-06-03
02 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was generated
2015-06-03
02 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-06-03
02 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was changed
2015-06-03
02 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was generated
2015-06-03
02 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2015-06-03
02 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-05-23
02 Amy Vezza Notification list changed to draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription.shepherd@ietf.org, pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org from "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
2015-05-21
02 Adam Roach
Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02:

[This is based on the template version dated 24 February 2012.]

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, …
Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02:

[This is based on the template version dated 24 February 2012.]

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  This document is marked as Standards Track in the title page header,
  and that seems appropriate, because it is defining new, optional,
  normative behavior.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) REFER request, as defined by
  RFC3515, triggers an implicit SIP-Specific Event Notification
  framework subscription.  Conflating the start of the subscription
  with handling the REFER request makes negotiating SUBSCRIBE
  extensions impossible, and complicates avoiding SIP dialog sharing.
  This document defines extensions to REFER to prevent the implicit
  subscription and, if desired, replace it with an explicit one.

Working Group Summary

  There was some controversy and difficulty in reaching agreement on this draft.
  Before work on this draft and the companion draft (draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-
  clarifications) commenced, some (notably 3GPP) made attempts to use existing
  mechanisms (RFC4488) to avoid the need for GRUUs. That mechanism as insufficient
  on its own, and so was enhanced with particular conventions. There was a desire
  to maintain compatibility with that work. This led to careful word smithing.
  That has been discussed at length within the WG. The results are now acceptable
  to all parties.

Document Quality

  [Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?]

  I'm not aware of any implementations yet.
  It is my understanding that 3GPP release 12 has a reference,
  indicating that implementations can be expected.

  This document has been thoroughly reviewed and discussed. Everyone
  that had something to say has aired it.

Personnel

  The document shepherd is Paul Kyzivat.
  The area director is Ben Campbell.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The shepherd was a SIPCORE chairman during the entire period while this
  document was introduced and discussed. He has followed (and participated
  in) the discussion and reviewed the document carefully.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  NO.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  NO.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  NONE.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  YES.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  NO.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  There is good consensus.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  NO.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  NONE.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  YES.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  NO.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  NO.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  NO.

  It does *extend* RFC3515 in a backward compatible way.
  That is clearly explained.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The IANA considerations are all in good order.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  NONE.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  The shepherd verified the ABNF using bap.

2015-05-21
02 Adam Roach Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell
2015-05-21
02 Adam Roach IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-05-21
02 Adam Roach IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-05-21
02 Adam Roach IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-04-29
02 Paul Kyzivat Changed document writeup
2015-04-22
02 Robert Sparks New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02.txt
2015-03-25
01 Adam Roach Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-03-25
01 Adam Roach Notification list changed to "Paul Kyzivat" <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
2015-03-25
01 Adam Roach Document shepherd changed to Paul Kyzivat
2015-03-25
01 Adam Roach IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2015-03-03
01 Robert Sparks New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-01.txt
2014-11-22
00 Robert Sparks This document now replaces draft-sparks-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription instead of None
2014-11-21
00 Robert Sparks New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-00.txt