[sipcore] Protocol Action: 'The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-10.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Mon, 09 December 2013 19:10 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: <20131209191016.4782.64732.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 11:10:16 -0800
Cc: sipcore mailing list <sipcore@ietf.org>, sipcore chair <sipcore-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [sipcore] Protocol Action: 'The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP)'
  (draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-10.txt) as Proposed Standard

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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket/




Technical Summary 

   The WebSocket protocol enables two-way realtime communication between 
   clients and servers.  This document specifies a new WebSocket sub- 
   protocol as a reliable transport mechanism between SIP (Session 
   Initiation Protocol) entities to enable usage of SIP in new 
   scenarios. 

Working Group Summary 

   The introduction, adoption, and last call of this document went 
   unusually smoothly and quickly. It has been amazingly uncontroversial. 

Document Quality 

 Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 

     Yes. At least two. 

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

     At least two. There is a difference of opinion in the community 
     regarding the desirability of implementing SIP in a browser. 
     That portion of the community that is interested seems to be 
     planning to go ahead. It is entirely fine that some want to do 
     this and some do not. It simply reflects different philosophies 
     for construction of web-based services. 

 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? 

     No. 

 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. 

Personnel 

 Who is the Document Shepherd? 

     Paul Kyzivat 

 Who is the Responsible Area Director? 

     Richard Barnes

[sipcore] Protocol Action: 'The WebSocket Protoco… The IESG