Document Action: 'Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) History-Info Header Call Flow Examples' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-08.txt)

The IESG <> Thu, 02 January 2014 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B5B1ADFE5; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 09:25:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9tgc6Efi1MSd; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 09:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C611AE313; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 09:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Document Action: 'Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) History-Info Header Call Flow Examples' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-08.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:25:25 -0800
Cc: sipcore mailing list <>, sipcore chair <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:25:29 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) History-Info Header Call Flow
  (draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-08.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Session Initiation Protocol Core
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Richard Barnes and Gonzalo Camarillo.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

   This document describes use cases and documents call flows which
   require the History-Info header field to capture the Request-URIs as
   a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Request is retargeted.  The use
   cases are described along with the corresponding call flow diagrams
   and messaging details.

Working Group Summary

   There was considerable debate about the placement of 
   these call flows: all within the bis draft, all in a separate draft, 
   or some in the bis and some in this separate draft. This is largely
   a matter of taste. Ultimately the WG decided that a separate draft
   for all the call flows was preferred.

   It took an exceedingly long time to get this document adequately
   reviewed and to resolve issues with rfc4244bis that the reviews
   resolved. It has been hard to get attention on this because
   rfc4244bis has been considered "done" for a long time by those
   who care.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 

     NA. See the writeup for 4244bis. 

  Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? 

     NA. See the writeup for 4244bis. 

  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?

     Dale Worley did very heavy lifting reviewing all of
     these call flows, checking all the details. He deserves
     five gold stars.

     Roland Jesske, Laura Liess, and Marianne Mohali
     also did careful reviews that led to fixes.

  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 is nothing in this document that calls for an
     expert review.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? 

     Paul Kyzivat

  Who is the Responsible Area Director?

     Richard Barnes