Re: [sipcore] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-04.txt

[Eric Burger <[e-mail]>]

Thanks! I totally missed the thread. One question, besides updating the example, what should I say in the text? Since Feature-Caps is a list, should I say:

   Name:  sip.608

   Description:  This feature capability indicator, when included in a
      Feature-Caps header field of an INVITE request, indicates that the
      entity that inserted the sip.608 Feature-Caps value will be
      responsible for indicating to the caller any information contained
      in the 608 SIP response code, specifically the value referenced by
      the Call-Info header

or

   Name: *;+sip.608

   Description:  This feature capability indicator, when included in a
      Feature-Caps header field of an INVITE request, indicates that the
      entity that inserted the *;+sip.608 Feature-Caps value will be
      responsible for indicating to the caller any information contained
      in the 608 SIP response code, specifically the value referenced by
      the Call-Info header


> On Mar 27, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> It seems like you haven’t fixed the Feature-Caps examples, based on the earlier discussion (the name of the thread was ‘Syntax of Feature-Caps header’, but I guess you were not made aware that it affected the sipcore-rejected draft).
> 
> The correct way is: Feature-Caps: *;+sip.608
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> From: sipcore <[e-mail]> on behalf of "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, 27 March 2019 at 17.41
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-04.txt
> 
> Updated all instances of SHOULD xxx UNLESS yyy language to IF NOT yyy MUST xxx and took out my annual screed against SHOULD without UNLESS.
> 
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:39 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-04.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Eric W. Burger and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>> 
>> Name: draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected
>> Revision: 04
>> Title: A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Response Code for Rejected Calls
>> Document date: 2019-03-27
>> Group: sipcore
>> Pages: 22
>> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-04.txt
>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected/
>> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-04
>> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected
>> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-04
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   This document defines the 608 (Rejected) SIP response code.  This
>>   response code enables calling parties to learn that an intermediary
>>   rejected their call attempt.  The call will not be answered.  As a
>>   6xx code, the caller will be aware that future attempts to contact
>>   the same UAS will likely fail.  The present use case driving the need
>>   for the 608 response code is when the intermediary is an analytics
>>   engine.  In this case, the rejection is by a machine or other
>>   process.  This contrasts with the 607 (Unwanted) SIP response code,
>>   which a human at the target UAS indicated the call was not wanted.
>>   In some jurisdictions this distinction is important.  This document
>>   also defines the use of the Call-Info header in 608 responses to
>>   enable rejected callers to contact entities that blocked their calls
>>   in error.  This provides a remediation mechanism for legal callers
>>   that find their calls blocked.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>