Indicating WebSocket Protocol as a Transport in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Document Action: 'Indicating WebSocket Protocol as a Transport in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF)' to Informational RFC (draft-salgueiro-dispatch-websocket-sipclf-02.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Indicating WebSocket Protocol as a Transport in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF)' (draft-salgueiro-dispatch-websocket-sipclf-02.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: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-salgueiro-dispatch-websocket-sipclf/
Technical Summary: RFC 7118 specifies a WebSocket sub-protocol as a reliable real-time transport mechanism between Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) entities to enable usage of SIP in web-oriented deployments. This document updates the SIP Common Log Format (CLF), defined in RFC 6873, with a new "Transport Flag" for such SIP WebSocket transport. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? With the SIPCLF WG recently closed, this document was not contextually relevant within any active WG charters. The narrow scope of the document didn't warrant creation of a new WG, so RAI ADs and DISPATCH WG chairs agreed that an AD sponsored individual draft was the proper course of action. 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? SIP CLF Transport Flag values must be registered via the IETF Review method described in RFC5226. This document updates RFC 6873 by defining a new SIP CLF "Transport Flag" value for WebSocket ('W'). Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Vijay Gurbani is the Document Shepherd. Richard Barnes is the Responsible AD.