The IESG has approved the following document: - 'The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) P-Private-Network-Indication Private-Header (P-Header)' (draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind-07.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 Richard Barnes. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind/ Technical Summary: This document specifies the SIP P-Private-Network-Indication P-header used by the 3rd-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). The P-Private-Network-Indication indicates that the message is part of the message traffic of a private network, and identifies that private network. A private network indication allows nodes to treat private network traffic according to a different set of rules than the set applicable to public network traffic. Working Group Summary: Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? This document has been discussed in the DISPATCH WG. The DISPATCH WG does not progress any documents as WG documents. The DISPATCH WG selects one the following actions for contributions to the WG that have been adequately reviewed and discussed: - None in the case of work items for which there is inadequate interest or feedback indicates that the work should not be progressed (e.g., it's a bad idea or not within scope for RAI area or IETF) - New work item in currently chartered WG - New WG or mini-WG in the case where the deliverable is likely a single document - e.g. a new SIP header - IETF official BoF - typically for work items that are of broad interest and potential impact within the RAI area and across areas. - Individual/AD sponsored - for items limited in scope and applicability Individual/AD sponsored was the consensus of the DISPATCH WG for this document and the AD(s) agreed to progress the document. There was no controversy around this decision. 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? This document is required for the 3GPP/IMS specifications, thus any vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this specification. John Elwell thoroughly reviewed earlier versions of this document. In addition, James Yu provided a detailed review and Paul Kyzivat reviewed one of the more recent versions. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd. Richard Barnes is the Responsible AD.
