Explicit Subscriptions for the REFER Method
draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
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 |