[cuss] Protocol Action: 'A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control Information in SIP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Wed, 11 June 2014 15:52 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20140611155253.11288.53522.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:52:53 -0700
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cuss/N4iqSEyNnVLd-VSD6nHxOUClgoM
Cc: cuss mailing list <cuss@ietf.org>, cuss chair <cuss-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [cuss] Protocol Action: 'A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control Information in SIP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control Information in
   SIP'
  (draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-17.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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui/




Technical Summary:

This document defines a new SIP header field, User-to-User Information (UUI),
to transport data between two SIP user agents opaquely.  Also defined is
an extension mechanism for new UUI packages.

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?

There was nothing contentious during the WG process worth noting.
Certain aspects like getting the right semantics for the hex encoding of 
the UUI data, whether or not conversion between encodings will be allowed 
at gateways, etc., engendered email discussions but consensus was
reached by all concerned parties equitably.

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?

There are reported implementations of earlier version of the draft
from Avaya, Dialogic and Audiocodes.

This is work that other SDOs (3GPP) are waiting for.  

Laura Liess and Shida Schubert deserve mention for WGLC related to
this draft.

Personnel:

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

Document Shepherd: Vijay K. Gurbani
Responsible AD: Alissa Cooper

[cuss] Protocol Action: 'A Mechanism for Transpor… The IESG