Authors, This is a reminder that we await word from you regarding the questions below and 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) 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 10, 2025, at 6:23 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > 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. > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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] > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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 ... > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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." > --> > > > 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>. > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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]
