Clarifications for When to Use the name-addr Production in SIP Messages
draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-08-02
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-07-26
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from EDIT |
2017-06-15
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-06-15
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-06-15
|
02 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-06-12
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2017-06-12
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-06-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2017-06-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2017-06-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-06-12
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-06-08
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2017-06-08
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2017-06-07
|
02 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2017-06-07
|
02 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2017-06-07
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-06-07
|
02 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-06-07
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-06-06
|
02 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-06-06
|
02 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-06-06
|
02 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2017-06-06
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2017-06-06
|
02 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2017-06-06
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-06-06
|
02 | Francis Dupont | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2017-06-05
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-06-05
|
02 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2017-06-03
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2017-06-02
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. |
2017-06-01
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-06-01
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2017-06-01
|
02 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02.txt |
2017-06-01
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-01
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Sparks |
2017-06-01
|
02 | Robert Sparks | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-01
|
01 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2017-05-31
|
01 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-05-31
|
01 | Ben Campbell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-06-08 |
2017-05-31
|
01 | Ben Campbell | Ballot has been issued |
2017-05-31
|
01 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-05-31
|
01 | Ben Campbell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-05-29
|
01 | Bert Wijnen | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Bert Wijnen. Sent review to list. |
2017-05-26
|
01 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-05-26
|
01 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-01.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-01.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2017-05-26
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
2017-05-26
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
2017-05-22
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2017-05-22
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2017-05-18
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2017-05-18
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2017-05-18
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-05-18
|
01 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ben@nostrum.com, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance@ietf.org, br@brianrosen.net, Brian … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ben@nostrum.com, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance@ietf.org, br@brianrosen.net, Brian Rosen Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP messages) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol Core WG (sipcore) to consider the following document: - 'Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP messages' 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 2017-06-01. 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 RFC3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains the "name-addr / addr-spec" alternative to use name-addr when certain characters appear. Unfortunately it expressed the constraints with prose copied into each header field definition, and at least one header field was missed. Further, the constraint has not been copied into documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the alternative. This document updates RFC3261 to state the constraint generically, and clarifies that the constraint applies to all SIP header fields where there is a choice between using name-addr or addr-spec. It also updates the RFCs that define extension SIP header fields using the alternative to clarify that the constraint applies (RFCs 3325, 3515, 3892, 4508, 5002, 5318, 5360, and 5502). The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc5502: The SIP P-Served-User Private-Header (P-Header) for the 3GPP IP Multimedia (IM) Core Network (CN) Subsystem (Informational - IETF stream) rfc5318: The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) P-Refused-URI-List Private-Header (P-Header) (Informational - IETF stream) rfc5002: The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) P-Profile-Key Private Header (P-Header) (Informational - IETF stream) rfc3325: Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks (Informational - IETF stream) |
2017-05-18
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-05-18
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2017-05-16
|
01 | Ben Campbell | Last call was requested |
2017-05-16
|
01 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2017-05-16
|
01 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-05-16
|
01 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-05-16
|
01 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-05-16
|
01 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-05-15
|
01 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2017-05-15
|
01 | Brian Rosen | (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? … (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? Standards Track. This document normatively updates a number of standards track RFCs and thus it is appropriate that this should be a Proposed Standard (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 RFC3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains the "name-addr / addr-spec" alternative to use name-addr when certain characters appear. Unfortunately it expressed the constraints with prose copied into each header field definition, and at least one header field was missed. Further, the constraint has not been copied into documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the alternative. This document updates RFC3261 to state the constraint generically, and clarifies that the constraint applies to all SIP header fields where there is a choice between using name-addr or addr-spec. It also updates those extension SIP header fields that use the alternative to clarify that the constraint applies (RFCs 3325, 3515, 3892, 4508, 5002, 5318, 5360, and 5502). Working Group Summary This defect in 3261 has plagued SIP for some time, and is responsible for several errata. The working group was universal in it’s desire to fix this once and for all. Document Quality The document has been well reviewed within the SIP working group. A number of improvements have been made based on reviewer comments. The document is short, to the point, and clear. Personnel Brian Rosen is the document shepherd. Ben Campbell is the responsible area director. (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. This is a short document. The shepherd has read every version as they were published. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The scope of reviews performed seems adequate and appropriate. (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. The document requires no specialized expertise beyond that possessed by regular participants in the SIPCORE working group. (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. The shepherd has no such concerns. (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. The author has confirmed that no such declaration is necessary. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There has been no IPR disclosure filed. (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? Discussion of this document included several active participants with experience dealing with the problems addressed by it, including the errata reporter. There is a strong consensus that this document is needed, and it adequately addresses the issue. (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 appeal or discontent has been expressed. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are a few nits. The document uses 2119 keywords but does not include a reference to the RFC. The author agrees to add the reference as part of resolving IETF comments to the doc. The document is PS, because it normatively updates several PS documents but it also updates several INFORMATIONAL documents, which constitutes a "downref". The shepherd has reviewed the document against the checklist. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review requirements are triggered by this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? They have. (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? All normative references are to published RFCs. (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. Yes, the document is standards track but updates RFC 3325, 5002, 5318 and 5502, which are informational. (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. This document does not change the status of any published RFCs. (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). There are no IANA considerations in the document. (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. This document does not add any IANA registries. (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. There is no formal language defined in this document. It references ABNF in other documents, but does not define any new ABNF. |
2017-05-15
|
01 | Brian Rosen | Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell |
2017-05-15
|
01 | Brian Rosen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2017-05-15
|
01 | Brian Rosen | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-05-15
|
01 | Brian Rosen | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-05-15
|
01 | Brian Rosen | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2017-05-15
|
01 | Brian Rosen | Changed document writeup |
2017-05-10
|
01 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-01.txt |
2017-05-10
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-10
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Sparks |
2017-05-10
|
01 | Robert Sparks | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-10
|
00 | Brian Rosen | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2017-05-10
|
00 | Brian Rosen | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document |
2017-05-10
|
00 | Brian Rosen | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-05-10
|
00 | Brian Rosen | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2017-05-10
|
00 | Brian Rosen | Notification list changed to Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> |
2017-05-10
|
00 | Brian Rosen | Document shepherd changed to Brian Rosen |
2017-03-23
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Added to session: IETF-98: sipcore Thu-1520 |
2017-02-28
|
00 | Adam Roach | This document now replaces draft-sparks-sipcore-name-addr-guidance instead of None |
2017-02-28
|
00 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-00.txt |
2017-02-28
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-02-28
|
00 | Robert Sparks | Set submitter to "Robert Sparks ", replaces to draft-sparks-sipcore-name-addr-guidance and sent approval email to group chairs: sipcore-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-02-28
|
00 | Robert Sparks | Uploaded new revision |