Authors, This is a reminder that we await word from you regarding this document's readiness for publication as an RFC. The files are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.xml (source) Diff files of all changes from the approved Internet-Draft: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff file of AUTH48 changes only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9878 Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center > On Oct 24, 2025, at 6:08 PM, Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Roland, Andy*, > > * Andy (as AD), please review and let us know if you approve the changes to > the abstract, based on replies to our questions below. The changes are shown > in the diff files below; here is the current abstract: > > The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has identified cases > where different SIP private header extensions referred to as "P-" > header fields, and defined in RFC 7315, need to be included in SIP > requests and responses where they were not allowed according to RFC > 7315. This document updates RFC 7315, in order to allow inclusion of > the affected "P-" header fields in such requests and responses. This > document obsoletes RFC 7976. The changes related to RFC 7976 involve > the inclusion of the P-Visited-Network-ID header field in SIP > responses. > > This document also makes updates to RFC 7315 in order to fix > misalignments that occurred when RFC 3455 was obsoleted by RFC 7315. > > > Roland, > Thank you for your reply. The revised files are here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.xml > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors > before continuing the publication process. This page shows > the AUTH48 status of your document: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9878 > > Thank you. > > Alice Russo > RFC Production Center > >> On Oct 23, 2025, at 2:51 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Thank you for your review. >> Find the answers below >> >> Best regards >> >> Roland >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Oktober 2025 03:23 >> An: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; Jesske, Roland <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Betreff: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9878 <draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-04> for >> your review >> >> Authors, >> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >> the following questions, which are also in the source file. >> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFC 7315, please review the >> errata reported for RFC 7315 >> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7315) >> and let us know if you confirm our opinion that none of them are relevant to >> the content of this document. >> --> [RJ] Yes is not relevant to the content of this document. >> >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Because this document obsoletes RFC 7976, please >> review the errata reported for RFC 7976 >> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7976) >> and let us know if you confirm our opinion that none of them >> are relevant to the content of this document. >> -->[RJ] Yes is not relevant to the content of this document. >> >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] While we understand the original document (RFC 7976) was >> published with the text in some of the questions below, the opportunity >> with the "bis" document is to make the text as clear as possible. >> If you decide to make changes, you have the option to add text to >> Section 7 to mention minor editorial updates. >> --> [RJ] No need to add additional text. >> >> >> 4) <!--[rfced] Abstract and Introduction: Please review if the first sentence >> conveys the intended meaning. Specifically, should "currently not allowed" >> be rephrased? This text is directly from RFC 7976, published in 2016. What >> is the subject of "not allowed"? It can be read as the requests and responses >> are not allowed. >> >> Based on "This specification allows some header fields to be present >> in messages where they were previously not allowed" (Section 5), >> we make the following suggestion. >> >> Original: >> The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has identified cases >> where different SIP private header extensions referred to as "P-" >> header fields, and defined in RFC 7315, need to be included in SIP >> requests and responses currently not allowed according to RFC 7315. >> >> Perhaps: >> The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has identified cases >> where different SIP private header extensions referred to as "P-" >> header fields, and defined in RFC 7315, need to be included in SIP >> requests and responses where they were not allowed according to RFC 7315. >> --> [OK for me] >> >> >> 5) <!--[rfced] Abstract and Introduction: Please clarify "when RFC 3455 was >> updated and subsequently obsoleted by the publication of RFC 7315". >> In the RFC series, "updated" and "obsoleted" have distinct meanings >> regarding the relationships between RFCs. >> >> RFC 3455 has not been updated by any other RFCs, so the original sentence >> is not accurate. We suggest simply "obsoleted" as follows. Please let us >> know if this is acceptable. >> >> Original: >> This document also makes updates for RFC 7315 in order to fix >> misalignments that occurred when RFC 3455 was updated and >> subsequently obsoleted by the publication of RFC 7315. >> >> Perhaps: >> This document also makes updates for RFC 7315 in order to fix >> misalignments that occurred when RFC 3455 was obsoleted by >> RFC 7315. >> >> Or (if you prefer to explain "obsoleted"): >> This document also makes updates for RFC 7315 in order to fix >> misalignments that occurred when RFC 3455 was obsoleted by >> RFC 7315, i.e., when the content of RFC 3455 was completely replaced. >> >> >> FYI, similarly, we have updated Section 2.2 as follows for accuracy. >> >> Original: when [RFC3455] was updated and obsolated by [RFC7315] >> Current: when [RFC3455] was obsoleted by [RFC7315] >> -->[RJ] I would then prefer: >> >> This document also makes updates for RFC 7315 in order to fix >> misalignments that occurred when RFC 3455 was obsoleted by >> RFC 7315. >> >> I think this is completely OK >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the note in this document to be in an >> <aside> element, or remain as is? It is defined as "a container for >> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the >> content that surrounds it" >> (https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). >> >> Original: >> NOTE: In the case of the P-Called-Party-ID header field, allowing it >> in PUBLISH requests was done deliberately in [RFC7315]. Therefore, >> it is not considered a misalignment. >> >> --> We could shift it to: <aside> element >> >> >> 7) <!--[rfced] To prevent misreading this sentence (i.e., "the NPLI needs to >> be stored as the location of the user"), may we add a comma as follows? >> >> Original: >> When an IMS session is modified, the NPLI also >> needs to be stored as the location of the user at the time when the >> session is modified may generate a charging event. >> >> Suggested: >> When an IMS session is modified, the NPLI also >> needs to be stored, as the location of the user at the time when the >> session is modified may generate a charging event. >> >> --> Yes use coma >> >> >> 8) <!--[rfced] We suggest adding articles ('the' and 'a') as follows; please >> let >> us know if this is acceptable. (We note that RFC 7976 did not use >> articles in similar text, but 'a SIP 2xx response' appears in other RFCs.) >> >> Original: ... within SIP 2xx response to the SIP INVITE request. >> Perhaps: ... within the SIP 2xx response to the SIP INVITE request. >> >> Original: Upon reception of the SDP answer within SIP 2xx response .. >> Perhaps: Upon reception of the SDP answer within a SIP 2xx response ... >> >> --> Yes would be good to use articles. Reads better >> >> >> 9) <!--[rfced] non-2xx response vs. SIP non-2xx response >> In other instances in this document, "SIP" does not appear before >> "non-2xx response"; may it be removed here, or is it necessary? >> >> Original: >> The P-Charging-Vector header field shall not be included in SIP ACK >> requests triggered by SIP non-2xx responses. >> >> Perhaps (to match usage in Sections 2.3.2 and 3): >> The P-Charging-Vector header field shall not be included in SIP ACK >> requests triggered by non-2xx responses. >> >> --> OK let's go with your proposal >> >> >> 10) <!--[rfced] FYI, in Section 3, the quote of RFC 7315 ("Old text") has >> been updated to exactly match the RFC. If you prefer to keep the blank >> lines between each sentence, then please let us know and we would suggest >> adding text to note that it does not match the original, e.g., "Blank >> lines have been added for readability." >> --> We had a discussion on this. That I swhy we added the blank lines for >> readability. So please keep it an add a note please. >> >> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we updated the 3GPP reference titles to match >> the titles provided by 3GPP. We have also added URLs that point to >> the specific version used in the references. Please review. >> >> We note the version referenced in this document is from 2016 and there have >> been several updates over the years. Would you like to update this >> reference to a more current version? Or would you like these >> references to point to the 3GPP Technical Specifications in general? >> >> Current: >> [TS23.228] 3GPP, "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Stage 2", Version >> 13.6.0, Release 13, 3GPP TS 23.228, June 2016, >> <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/ >> archive/23_series/23.228/23228-g30.zip>. >> >> [TS24.229] 3GPP, "IP multimedia call control protocol based on >> Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description >> Protocol (SDP); Stage 3", Version 13.6.0, Release 13, 3GPP >> TS 24.229, June 2016, <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/ >> archive/24_series/24.229/24229-d60.zip>. >> >> Perhaps: >> [TS23.228] >> 3GPP, "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Stage 2", 3GPP >> TS 23.228, >> <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ >> SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=821>. >> >> [TS24.229] >> 3GPP, "IP multimedia call control protocol based on >> Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description >> Protocol (SDP); Stage 3", 3GPP TS 24.229, >> <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ >> SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=1055>. >> >> >> --> We can shift to the generic reference >> >> >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online >> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically >> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >> still be reviewed as a best practice. >> >> --> I have not seen anything that must be changed under these aspects >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Alice Russo >> RFC Production Center >> >> On Oct 10, 2025, [email protected] wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/10/10 >> >> RFC Author(s): >> -------------- >> >> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >> >> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >> >> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >> your approval. >> >> Planning your review >> --------------------- >> >> Please review the following aspects of your document: >> >> * RFC Editor questions >> >> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >> follows: >> >> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >> >> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >> >> * Changes submitted by coauthors >> >> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >> >> * Content >> >> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >> - contact information >> - references >> >> * Copyright notices and legends >> >> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >> (TLP - https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >> >> * Semantic markup >> >> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >> >> * Formatted output >> >> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >> >> >> Submitting changes >> ------------------ >> >> To submit changes, please reply to this email using 'REPLY ALL' as all >> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >> include: >> >> * your coauthors >> >> * [email protected] (the RPC team) >> >> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >> >> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list >> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >> list: >> >> * More info: >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >> >> * The archive itself: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >> >> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and >> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >> >> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >> >> An update to the provided XML file >> - OR - >> An explicit list of changes in this format >> >> Section # (or indicate Global) >> >> OLD: >> old text >> >> NEW: >> new text >> >> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >> >> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >> >> >> Approving for publication >> -------------------------- >> >> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use 'REPLY ALL', >> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >> >> >> Files >> ----- >> >> The files are available here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9878-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9878 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9878 (draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-04) >> >> Title : Updates to Private Header (P-Header) Extension Usage in >> Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Requests and Responses >> Author(s) : C. Holmberg, N. Biondic, G. Salgueiro, R. Jesske >> WG Chair(s) : Brian Rosen, Jean Mahoney >> Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Orie Steele >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
