A Session Identifier for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
RFC 7329

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'A Session Identifier for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to Informational RFC (draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-04.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Session Identifier for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)'
  (draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-04.txt) as Informational RFC

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Richard Barnes.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

        Technical Summary:

There is a need for having a globally unique session identifier for
the same SIP session, which can be consistently maintained across
Proxies, B2BUAs and other SIP middle-boxes, for the purpose of
Troubleshooting.  This draft originally proposed a new SIP header
(Session-ID) to carry such a value, which is now being defined by the

        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
This RFC, which contains the text of an individual Internet-Draft that
was submitted originally to the DISPATCH Working Group, is being
published now as an Informational document to provide a reference for
the work currently being defined in the INSIPID WG.  The INSIPID WG
Session-ID solution replaces the 'legacy' solution presented in
draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-03 and intends to ensure
interoperability and backwards compatibility with such legacy
Session-ID entities.

         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?

The legacy Session-ID solution described in this document is very
widely deployed, especially by Service Providers providing 3GPP IMS.
The ubiquity of this legacy solution and the requirement that the
current INSIPID WG work be backwards compatible with it is the primary
driver for its publications as an Informational RFC that can be
referenced by the current INSIPID WG documents. This document does not
meet the requirements defined in

         Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Gonzalo Salgueiro (INSIPID WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.
Richard Barnes is the Responsible AD.