Hi Alice, Thank you for reminding me. I went through the document again and I realized that I have a small editorial issue identified.
My Adress is wrong: Roland Jesske Deutsche Telekom Telekom Allee 9 64295 Darmstadt I missed to write the complete street name, so the street is not Telekom Allee 9 it is Deutsche Telekom Allee 9. Correct is: Roland Jesske Deutsche Telekom Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 9 64295 Darmstadt The rest of the document fits and is from my side OK and can be processed. Thank you for your efforts. Best Regards Roland -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Alice Russo <[email protected]> Gesendet: Montag, 3. November 2025 17:22 An: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jesske, Roland <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Andrew Newton <[email protected]>; [email protected]; auth48archive <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9878 <draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc7976bis-04> for your review 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%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878.html&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40tele > kom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb2 > 5f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919252156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU > 1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldU > IjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=flruONqIcFuXscdNnOd4mUg1dj%2FcZ0QJkaeD > qEpyg70%3D&reserved=0 > > https://www/. > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878.txt&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40telek > om.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25 > f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919264044%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1 > hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUI > joyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e0MZ2KY65lMZyZFHjIToPAZFrzP8dRPTgRnkM2i > gy0Q%3D&reserved=0 > > https://www/. > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40telek > om.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25 > f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919275104%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1 > hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUI > joyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xmno8u37se0JJStf%2FOsIr%2BgQFnItB8ZxK7u > KZL%2Befw8%3D&reserved=0 > > https://www/. > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878.xml&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40telek > om.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25 > f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919284685%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1 > hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUI > joyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9rYwbYXHXB0otVYKnueHIotYa4H%2BOuwlSuue0 > uW8Mn4%3D&reserved=0 > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > > https://www/. > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%4 > 0telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a > 5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919294010%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFb > XB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCI > sIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dG6qCXi4tSLhcsGykcXA7wDRu6492nm2U > Dx9T0nKY4w%3D&reserved=0 > > https://www/. > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jessk > e%40telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b > 04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919303238%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey > JFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFp > bCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FE0v8w1oIuFS6rQ0JnTVnbxt6Jmi > H2tkSSvlPdiYSfo%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > > https://www/. > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CR.Je > sske%40telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf > 68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919312460%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d > 8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiT > WFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8sHORwRyHmKdJyqb0I%2BB5ZDY2 > pEXbaETpYvSSkL6IAI%3D&reserved=0 > > https://www/. > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CR > .Jesske%40telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b60 > 4cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919321862%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs > b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIj > oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wj4GWj3QyG7w88aAYarD2rGT > Pz5nt12LgNs1iqLk8H0%3D&reserved=0 (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%2Fauth48%2Frfc9878&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40telekom.de > %7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f > %7C0%7C0%7C638977837919331241%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGki > OnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ > %3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ltkjPit%2FEz51B3bOQ5oSxBZ1eIG5z9eHlHiKSUbors > I%3D&reserved=0 > > 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://ww/ >> w.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Frfc7315&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40telekom >> .de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f >> 5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919340539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1 >> hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldU >> IjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HuZa2zaqXMksK%2Fr4RcvzQ%2BhFoeDqrPBce >> noN79PllRQ%3D&reserved=0) 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://ww/ >> w.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Frfc7976&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40telekom >> .de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f >> 5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919350163%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1 >> hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldU >> IjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tlHHeEuk%2FQ1D6f%2BRyvbd6sh3Sv3Jv2lvg >> DHKLz9v%2Fzc%3D&reserved=0) 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://ww/ >> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05 >> %7C02%7CR.Jesske%40telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbd >> e4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919410770%7CUnknown >> %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW >> 4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2B52WSYnCE >> 4bkG%2Fp7Q9aPZ1jUpuz1aTswnLDkq5Hy2v0%3D&reserved=0> >> 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://mai/ >> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe >> 6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08 >> de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C6389778379194 >> 49872%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDA >> wMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sd >> ata=MsiuiBtPW0Q83prG2fw7HEvzFz2W9GlcjBmKcButJPE%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * The archive itself: >> >> https://mai/ >> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7CR >> .Jesske%40telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b6 >> 04cf68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919459599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG >> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkF >> OIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xmzI0lZLBO5Ila02WtaZ >> VQOZRzavAypTtMV6%2FZ4kQvs%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * 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%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878.xml&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40tel >> ekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5ee >> b25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919469187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB >> 0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs >> IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cZ02oOl7gj1QOzA9NbYaBHfSk92Em0I%2 >> FQhcb3HN7GJ4%3D&reserved=0 >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878.html&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40te >> lekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5e >> eb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919478546%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbX >> B0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCI >> sIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MOCpvti5Pnyt3ifF8sOr%2BD8vJrWeg3 >> 8pgT8hl237R%2B8%3D&reserved=0 >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40tel >> ekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5ee >> b25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919487856%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB >> 0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs >> IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eS%2BUNaQWsgfthg7apPxslnblncPyVnW >> jMHma3EcNwfI%3D&reserved=0 >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878.txt&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40tel >> ekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5ee >> b25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919497134%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB >> 0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs >> IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pvVAcnSQrkM%2FMR%2F7TKZqsGOYbNMqB >> gg5rrSiCUXJSyo%3D&reserved=0 >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske >> %40telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b >> 04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919506516%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8e >> yJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTW >> FpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QemZFtRXJlOO%2Fsy0LqJX%2BRf >> QfWmQ%2BW0URdSJAPQGUn4%3D&reserved=0 >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jes >> ske%40telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf >> 68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919515775%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 >> d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjo >> iTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=d7lIiKrdzAQ1EwZ3lu4xs47H >> 3v7qSPvXWwzwvtYgvGI%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9878-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7CR.Je >> sske%40telekom.de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604c >> f68b04a5eeb25f5c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919525120%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb >> 3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIj >> oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LwRL8coigyzwNrZwg2RBg7R >> Nnex6IXEvhs4qrduTdS8%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9878&data=05%7C02%7CR.Jesske%40telekom. >> de%7C295100ea6e6048f52c4c08de1af5337b%7Cbde4dffc4b604cf68b04a5eeb25f5 >> c4f%7C0%7C0%7C638977837919534533%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1h >> cGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUI >> joyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D4%2BRBITfpjJPbMw099OngfDilzmFwapktXey >> NnH5Aio%3D&reserved=0 >> >> 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]
