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 |