[sipcore] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-01.txt> (Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP messages) to Proposed Standard

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 18 May 2017 12:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
CC: ben@nostrum.com, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance@ietf.org, br@brianrosen.net, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <149511229601.6682.1176174803456069749.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 05:58:16 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/zhIv_5k-4Ud8eZ6e9v2l-5qdZSo>
Subject: [sipcore] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-01.txt> (Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP messages) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol Core
WG (sipcore) to consider the following document:
- 'Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP
   messages'
  <draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-01.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-06-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   RFC3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains
   the "name-addr / addr-spec" alternative to use name-addr when certain
   characters appear.  Unfortunately it expressed the constraints with
   prose copied into each header field definition, and at least one
   header field was missed.  Further, the constraint has not been copied
   into documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the
   alternative.

   This document updates RFC3261 to state the constraint generically,
   and clarifies that the constraint applies to all SIP header fields
   where there is a choice between using name-addr or addr-spec.  It
   also updates the RFCs that define extension SIP header fields using
   the alternative to clarify that the constraint applies (RFCs 3325,
   3515, 3892, 4508, 5002, 5318, 5360, and 5502).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information: 
    rfc5502: The SIP P-Served-User Private-Header (P-Header) for the 3GPP IP Multimedia (IM) Core Network (CN) Subsystem (Informational - IETF stream)
    rfc5318: The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) P-Refused-URI-List Private-Header (P-Header) (Informational - IETF stream)
    rfc5002: The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) P-Profile-Key Private Header (P-Header) (Informational - IETF stream)
    rfc3325: Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks (Informational - IETF stream)

[sipcore] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sipcore-name-add… The IESG