Interworking ISDN Call Control User Information with SIP
RFC 7434

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: RFC Editor <>,
    cuss mailing list <>,
    cuss chair <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Interworking ISDN Call Control User Information with SIP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-11.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Interworking ISDN Call Control User Information with SIP'
  (draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-11.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Call Control UUI Service for SIP
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alissa Cooper and Richard Barnes.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary:
    The move of communications networks to SIP does not ameliorate
    the need to support use cases for interworking and transporting
    legacy PSTN-related information in SIP.  This document defines
    a package and associated semantics that allows SIP endpoints to 
    exchange information related to the ISDN UUS1 service.

Working Group Summary:
    A WGLC was held from Nov-13-2013 to Nov-29-2013.  As part of the
    WGLC, reviews were performed by WG members (Andrew Allen, Atle
    Monrad and Celine Serrut-Valette) and other members affirmed the
    need to move ahead with the draft.

    There was one area on which consensus was eventually acheived:
    draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn uses the value of "isdn-uui" for 
    the "purpose" header field parameter.  Older versions of the 
    draft used the value "isdn-network".  Consequently, there are 
    implementations that use "isdn-network" and doubtlessly, for 
    some valid reasons these implementations are not amenable to 
    change.  Text was added to -06 version of the draft that 
    adequately addressed the issue of implicitly supporting "isdn-
    network" in certain cases.  The participants to the discussion
    are okay with the proposed resolution.

Document Quality:
    The document has been reviewed by multiple WG members and has 
    been affirmed by many more.  There are no known issues with 
    document quality.  There appear to be existing implementations 
    of the draft, especially since the issue requiring consensus
    (described above) was specifically so that existing code can
    continue to work.

    Vijay K. Gurbani is the Document Shepherd.  Alissa Cooper is
    the Responsible Area Director.

   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the 
   Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
   experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
   in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'