Re: [stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info

Just to be clear, the underlying protocol document is not a SIPCORE WG 
item, but being progressed as as an individual draft.

New SIP header fields can be created by such an individual draft in 
accordance with RFC 5727:

"

        The proposed header field MUST be of a purely informational
        nature and MUST NOT significantly change the behavior of SIP
        entities that support it.  Header fields that merely provide
        additional information pertinent to a request or a response are
        acceptable; these header fields are thus expected to have few, if
        any, implications for interoperability and backwards
        compatibility.  Similarly, header fields that provide data
        consumed by applications at the ends of SIP's rendezvous
        function, rather than changing the behavior of the rendezvous
        function, are likely to be providing information in this sense.
        If the header fields redefine or contradict normative behavior
        defined in Standards Track SIP specifications, that is what is
        meant by significantly different behavior.  Ultimately, the
        significance of differences in behavior is a judgment call that
        must be made by the expert reviewer.

"
However individual drafts tend to make slow progress without WGs to 
drive them.

I have no opinion on whether STIR should have support, but would 
question whether a WG standards track item should be defined to support 
protocol that was not progressed as a WG item and is an informational RFC.

regards

Keith

On 09-May-18 1:35 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
> Who wants this?   What is the use case or business case for this as a 
> PASSporT?
>
> I’m actually curious?
>
> It has certainly taken way to long for Dan York’s draft to float 
> through the convoluted IETF process but why?
>
> —
>
> Richard Shockey
>
> Shockey Consulting LLC
>
> Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
>
> www.shockey.us
>
> www.sipforum.org
>
> richard<at>shockey.us
>
> Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter  rshockey101
>
> PSTN +1 703-593-2683
>
> *From: *stir <stir-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Asveren, Tolga" 
> <tasveren@rbbn.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:45 PM
> *To: *"stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info
>
> I just submitted draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info-00..txt<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info-00.txt>
>
> It defines a new claim type for P-Charge-Info.
>
> P-Charge-Info is going through the last steps of becoming a RFC in 
> SIPCore WG and I though it would be a good idea to start working 
> on/kicking off discussions about the corresponding STIR support as it 
> is used to carry sensitive information for billing.
>
> And here is the link for P-Charge-Info draft:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-york-p-charge-info-07
>
> Feedback/ideas/suggestions are appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tolga
>
> _______________________________________________ stir mailing list 
> stir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir