Document Action: 'Instant Messaging and Presence Purpose for the Call-Info Header Field in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to Informational RFC (draft-saintandre-impp-call-info-04.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Fri, 07 June 2013 13:59 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>
Subject: Document Action: 'Instant Messaging and Presence Purpose for the Call-Info Header Field in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to Informational RFC (draft-saintandre-impp-call-info-04.txt)
Message-ID: <20130607135920.26048.67301.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 06:59:20 -0700
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Instant Messaging and Presence Purpose for the Call-Info Header Field
   in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)'
  (draft-saintandre-impp-call-info-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 Gonzalo Camarillo.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-impp-call-info/




Technical Summary

  This document defines and registers a value of "impp" ("instant
  messaging and presence protocol") for the "purpose" header field
  parameter of the Call-Info header field in the Session Initiation
  Protocol (SIP).

Working Group Summary

  This draft was discussed in the DISPATCH working group. The
  conclusion of those discussions was that it was appropriate to AD
  sponsor it given that it was not controversial. The document is
  simply about the registration of an additional call-info header
  token and as such could even be viewed as a formality.

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 document shepherd isn't aware of current
  implementations. However there was interest in this work by vendors
  already implementing I-D.ivov-xmpp-cusax draft and there is a
  general interest in improving the interoperability among real-time
  communication endpoints that support combined use of SIP and XMPP,
  which is the purpose of the newly proposed header parameter value.

Personnel

  The document shepherd is Yana Stamcheva.
  The responsible area director is Gonzalo Camarillo.

Document Action: 'Instant Messaging and Presence … The IESG