Skip to main content

SIP "cause" URI Parameter for Service Number Translation
draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-14

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-03-15
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-03-08
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from EDIT
2017-02-13
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2017-02-13
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2017-02-10
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2017-02-06
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-02-06
14 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-02-06
14 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-02-06
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2017-02-06
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2017-02-06
14 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2017-02-06
14 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-02-06
14 Ben Campbell Please note that there is an RFC Editor note.
2017-02-06
14 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2017-02-06
14 Ben Campbell RFC Editor Note was changed
2017-02-06
14 Ben Campbell RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2017-02-06
14 Ben Campbell RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2017-02-06
14 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2017-02-02
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-02-02
14 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Per RFC 3969, SIP URI parameters and their values can only be defined in standards track RFCs.

So why isn't this one? …
[Ballot comment]
Per RFC 3969, SIP URI parameters and their values can only be defined in standards track RFCs.

So why isn't this one?

----

The issue was observed by Joel Halpern in his Gen-ART review:

    This document defines a new code for use in SIP, and specifies new behavior both for the code itself and for its use in history-info.  I am thus confused as to how this can be an informational RFC.  It looks like it either Proposed Standard or experimental.  Yes, I see that RFC 4458, which this updates is Informational.  But just because we did it wrong before does not make that behavior correct now.  In addition to my understanding of the roles of different RFCs, I note that RFC 3969 and the IANA registry both state that this assignment must be made by a standards track RFC.
2017-02-02
14 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2017-02-02
14 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2017-02-01
14 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-02-01
14 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-02-01
14 Jari Arkko [Ballot discuss]
Per RFC 3969, SIP URI parameters and their values can only be defined in standards track RFCs.

So why isn't this one?
2017-02-01
14 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
The issue was observed by Joel Halpern in his Gen-ART review:

    This document defines a new code for use in SIP, …
[Ballot comment]
The issue was observed by Joel Halpern in his Gen-ART review:

    This document defines a new code for use in SIP, and specifies new behavior both for the code itself and for its use in history-info.  I am thus confused as to how this can be an informational RFC.  It looks like it either Proposed Standard or experimental.  Yes, I see that RFC 4458, which this updates is Informational.  But just because we did it wrong before does not make that behavior correct now.  In addition to my understanding of the roles of different RFCs, I note that RFC 3969 and the IANA registry both state that this assignment must be made by a standards track RFC.
2017-02-01
14 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2017-02-01
14 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-02-01
14 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-02-01
14 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-02-01
14 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2017-02-01
14 Alvaro Retana [Ballot comment]
It seems to me that RFC4458 should be a Normative Reference.
2017-02-01
14 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-01-31
14 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2017-01-31
14 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-01-31
14 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-01-31
14 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Version 14 removed the new registry, so I have cleared my DISCUSS.  I copied my old DISCUSS point below:


I failed to notice …
[Ballot comment]
Version 14 removed the new registry, so I have cleared my DISCUSS.  I copied my old DISCUSS point below:


I failed to notice that version 13 section 5.2 adds a new IANA registry with no registration policy. This is a post IETF LC change as a result of the opsdir review.

I don't think that registry is needed, and prefer it to be removed. If the authors feel strongly that it is needed, then it needs a registration policy. Given the (potentially fragile) consensus about the IANA action taken by this draft prior to the addition of section 5.2, I think that this would require a repeated IETF last call.
2017-01-31
14 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2017-01-30
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2017-01-30
14 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-14.txt
2017-01-30
14 (System) New version approved
2017-01-30
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marianne Mohali" , "Mary Barnes"
2017-01-30
14 Marianne Mohali Uploaded new revision
2017-01-30
13 Ben Campbell
[Ballot discuss]
I failed to notice that version 13 section 5.2 adds a new IANA registry with no registration policy. This is a post IETF …
[Ballot discuss]
I failed to notice that version 13 section 5.2 adds a new IANA registry with no registration policy. This is a post IETF LC change as a result of the opsdir review.

I don't think that registry is needed, and prefer it to be removed. If the authors feel strongly that it is needed, then it needs a registration policy. Given the (potentially fragile) consensus about the IANA action taken by this draft prior to the addition of section 5.2, I think that this would require a repeated IETF last call.
2017-01-30
13 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to Discuss from Yes
2017-01-27
13 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed
2017-01-27
13 Amanda Baber
IANA NOT OK. 
Registry Actions - YES

After our Last Call review, a new section was added to this document that instructs us to create …
IANA NOT OK. 
Registry Actions - YES

After our Last Call review, a new section was added to this document that instructs us to create a registry called "SIP Cause." We have two questions:

1) What is/are the registration procedure(s)? See Section 4.1 of RFC 5226 for examples.

2) Can you confirm that the entries should not be listed in numerical order?
2017-01-26
13 Ben Campbell Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-02-02
2017-01-26
13 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2017-01-26
13 Ben Campbell Ballot has been issued
2017-01-26
13 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-01-26
13 Ben Campbell Created "Approve" ballot
2017-01-26
13 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was changed
2017-01-26
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-01-26
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-01-26
13 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-13.txt
2017-01-26
13 (System) New version approved
2017-01-26
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marianne Mohali" , "Mary Barnes"
2017-01-26
13 Marianne Mohali Uploaded new revision
2017-01-25
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Lionel Morand.
2017-01-20
12 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2017-01-18
12 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2017-01-13
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2017-01-13
12 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the SIP/SIPS URI Parameters subregistry of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Parameters registry located at:

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

the existing entry for cause will have its Reference modified. [ RFC-to-be ] will be added to [RFC4458].

Parameter Name Predefined Values References
-------------- ----------------- -------------------------
cause Yes [RFC4458][ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required 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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2016-12-24
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand
2016-12-24
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand
2016-12-22
12 Robert Sparks Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list.
2016-12-15
12 Joel Halpern Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list.
2016-12-15
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-12-15
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-12-15
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks
2016-12-15
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks
2016-12-14
12 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-12-14
12 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number@ietf.org, mahoney@nostrum.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number@ietf.org, mahoney@nostrum.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Cause URI parameter for Service Number translation) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Cause URI parameter for Service
  Number translation'
  as
Informational RFC

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 2017-01-18. (The date has been extended due
to the holidays.)  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


  RFC4458 defines a "cause" URI parameter, which may appear in the
  Request-URI of a SIP request, that is used to indicate a reason why
  the request arrived to the User Agent Server (UAS) receiving the
  message.  This document creates a new predefined value for the
  "cause" URI parameter to cover service number translation for cases
  of retargeting due to specific service action leading to the
  translation of a called service access number.  This document also
  provides guidance, which was missing in RFC4458, for using the
  "cause" URI parameter within the History-Info header field since this
  use is mandatory in some IP networks' implementations.

  This document updates RFC4458.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number/ballot/


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




2016-12-14
12 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-12-14
12 Ben Campbell Last call was requested
2016-12-14
12 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-12-14
12 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was changed
2016-12-14
12 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was generated
2016-12-14
12 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-12-13
12 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12.txt
2016-12-13
12 (System) New version approved
2016-12-13
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marianne Mohali" , "Mary Barnes"
2016-12-13
12 Marianne Mohali Uploaded new revision
2016-12-13
11 Jean Mahoney
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is 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?

    Informational, which is reflected correctly on the
    title page header.

    This draft is an update to RFC 4458, which is also
    informational. 

  Some history on RFC type:  RFC 4458, since it registers
  the "cause" URI parameter, probably should have been
  standards track, but at the time of publication, RFC 3969
  was not consistent in specifying that Standards Action
  was required for the registration of SIP URI parameters
  (RFC 5727 clarifies this). The minutes for the SIP WG,
  IETF 60, show that there was consensus to progress
  draft-jennings-sip-voicemail-uri (RFC 4458) as an
  individual submission to Informational, which is the
  path that RFC 4458 took. If the contents of RFC 4458
  were to be proposed today, the document would need
  to be standards track.

  After much discussion between the IESG, the ART AD,
  the SIPcore and Dispatch chairs about updating 
  RFC 4458 to be standards track and progressing
  draft-mohali-dispatch-service-number-translation 
  as standards track, it was decided to leave them as is. 
  The "cause" URI parameter is not intended for general use 
  across the internet. draft-mohali-dispatch-service-number-translation 
  does not register a URI parameter; it just adds a reference 
  to an existing registration. The decision to keep these 
  documents informational is not intended to set precedent;
  RFC 5727 remains the BCP for the SIP change process.


(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

  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.

    This specification creates a new, predefined value (380)
    for the "cause" URI parameter, defined in RFC 4458, to
    indicate that service number translation, in which a
    service access number has been retargeted due to specific
    service action, has occurred.


Working Group Summary

  Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
  it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
  about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
  document?

    Versions -00, -01, and -02 received feedback on the
    Dispatch mailing list. At IETF 92, the Dispatch chairs
    proposed to progress the draft as individual/AD sponsored,
    and no objections were raised.

    With the earliest drafts, there was some confusion among
    discussion participants about which "cause" parameter was
    being updated since SIP has both a "cause" URI parameter
    and a "cause" header field parameter that is used with the
    Reason header field. Which "cause" parameter the document 
    impacts is clarified in section 2.1 of the draft.


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?

    3GPP will be rolling this update out with Release 13,
    so there will be multiple implementations of this document.

    An expert review was not required for this document.

    The document's Acknowledgments section thanks reviewers
    who had significant feedback.


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

    Document Shepherd: Jean Mahoney

    Responsible Area Director: 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 thoroughly reviewed versions -06 through -09
    of this document. This document is ready to be forwarded
    to the IESG.


(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 interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

    The Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about
    this document.


(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.

    Each author confirmed that they had no IPR to declare
    on this draft.


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

    None filed.


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

    There is consensus that AD sponsored is the best approach for
    progressing this document. This document received support from
    reviewers on the Dispatch mailing list, and there have been no
    concerns about it moving forward once it was clarified which
    "cause" parameter the document addressed.


(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

    idnits 2.14.01 was run, and no issues were found.
    The Shepherd checked the draft against
    http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html.
    No issues were found with the draft.


(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 was required for this update to the
    "cause" URI parameter. 


(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

    This document updates RFC 4458. This information is clearly
    captured in the header, abstract, and introduction.


(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 section clearly identifies the
    "SIP/SIPS URI Parameters" subregistry within the "Session
    Initiation Protocols" registry, and shows how to modify
    the subregistry with the new reference.


(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.

    No expert review is required for new values of the
    "cause" parameter.


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

    No sections of this document are written in a formal language,
    thus no automated checks were performed. 


2016-12-13
11 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was generated
2016-12-13
11 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was changed
2016-12-13
11 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-12-13
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-12-13
11 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-11.txt
2016-12-13
11 (System) New version approved
2016-12-13
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marianne Mohali" , "Mary Barnes"
2016-12-13
11 Marianne Mohali Uploaded new revision
2016-12-12
10 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2016-12-08
10 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-10.txt
2016-12-08
10 (System) New version approved
2016-12-08
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marianne Mohali" , "Mary Barnes"
2016-12-08
10 Marianne Mohali Uploaded new revision
2016-10-20
09 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-10-19
09 Ben Campbell
This is my AD Evaluation of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-09. I have some concerns that I would like to discuss prior to this going to IETF last call. …
This is my AD Evaluation of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-09. I have some concerns that I would like to discuss prior to this going to IETF last call.

Process Comments:

- This draft really seems like a case of an informational draft trying to define protocol. Why is it not standards track? Now to be honest, I think RFC 4458 had the same problem in retrospect, but this draft expands the usage envisioned in 4458.

That all being said, it's not impossible to put protocol in an informational RFC. For example, if we want to document some de-facto but non-standardized protocol that is in use somewhere, we might put that in an informational RFC. But IMO, the draft should explain that.

- The "SIP/SIPS URI Parameters" registry has the standards-action policy. That was unclear at the time that 4458 was published, but clarified in 5727. Now, that’s the requirement for adding a new parameter, but doesn’t say anything about updating the definition of an existing one--but if we were to publish 4458 today it would have to be standards track (interacting with my previous comment). Thoughts?

- Did you consider creating a sub-registry for these values? 4458 did not, which suggests people weren't expecting them to be extended. Now it's being extended. The approach here is not out of the question, but it makes it harder for someone to figure out where to look to understand the 380 value, and is less likely to keep someone else trying to use 380 for something different.


Other Comments:

- 2.1: Is this section specific to this document? It seems more like additional guidance in general for using 4458 with IN applications. If that's the point of this draft, it should be more up-front about it.

-2.2, last paragraph:

How would the recipient know the To header had or had not changed?

-4: Please clarify that this draft asks IANA to modify the existing row for the cause parameter to add the additional reference.
2016-10-03
09 Ben Campbell Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-10-03
09 Ben Campbell Assigned to Applications and Real-Time Area
2016-10-03
09 Ben Campbell IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-10-03
09 Ben Campbell Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2016-09-26
09 Jean Mahoney Changed document writeup
2016-09-24
09 Marianne Mohali New version approved
2016-09-24
09 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-09.txt
2016-09-24
09 Marianne Mohali Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marianne Mohali" , "Mary Barnes"
2016-09-24
09 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-09-22
08 Marianne Mohali New version approved
2016-09-22
08 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-08.txt
2016-09-22
08 Marianne Mohali Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marianne Mohali" , "Mary Barnes"
2016-09-22
08 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-09-14
07 Ben Campbell Shepherding AD changed to Ben Campbell
2016-09-14
07 Ben Campbell Notification list changed to "Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
2016-09-14
07 Ben Campbell Document shepherd changed to Jean Mahoney
2016-09-14
07 Ben Campbell Stream changed to IETF from None
2016-07-08
07 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-07.txt
2016-03-21
06 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-06.txt
2015-10-15
05 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-05.txt
2015-09-22
04 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-04.txt
2015-07-21
03 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-03.txt
2015-05-11
02 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-02.txt
2015-01-21
01 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-01.txt
2014-10-26
00 Marianne Mohali New version available: draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-00.txt