Interworking ISDN Call Control User Information with 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>, cuss mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, cuss chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Interworking ISDN Call Control User Information with SIP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-11.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Interworking ISDN Call Control User Information with SIP' (draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-11.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Call Control UUI Service for SIP Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alissa Cooper and Richard Barnes. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn/
Technical Summary: The move of communications networks to SIP does not ameliorate the need to support use cases for interworking and transporting legacy PSTN-related information in SIP. This document defines a package and associated semantics that allows SIP endpoints to exchange information related to the ISDN UUS1 service. Working Group Summary: A WGLC was held from Nov-13-2013 to Nov-29-2013. As part of the WGLC, reviews were performed by WG members (Andrew Allen, Atle Monrad and Celine Serrut-Valette) and other members affirmed the need to move ahead with the draft. There was one area on which consensus was eventually acheived: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn uses the value of "isdn-uui" for the "purpose" header field parameter. Older versions of the draft used the value "isdn-network". Consequently, there are implementations that use "isdn-network" and doubtlessly, for some valid reasons these implementations are not amenable to change. Text was added to -06 version of the draft that adequately addressed the issue of implicitly supporting "isdn- network" in certain cases. The participants to the discussion are okay with the proposed resolution. Document Quality: The document has been reviewed by multiple WG members and has been affirmed by many more. There are no known issues with document quality. There appear to be existing implementations of the draft, especially since the issue requiring consensus (described above) was specifically so that existing code can continue to work. Personnel: Vijay K. Gurbani is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area Director. Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'