|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Standards track RFC - Proposed Standard approved January 2011. Errata exist.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
It is used as a reference in the Recommendation ITU-T Q.1912.5
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=6086
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
Proposed Standard approved January 2011. Errata exist. Obsoletes RFC 2976.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 6086 was published in January, 2011. It is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
Obsoletes RFC 2976. References within the referenced RFCs are listed under item 8.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate/
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
/
[2] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an/
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,/
May 2008./
/
[3] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax/
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008./
/
[4] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,/
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E./
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,/
June 2002./
/
[5] Camarillo, G., "Message Body Handling in the Session/
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5621, September 2009./
/
[6] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., and R. Sparks, "Change Process/
for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Real-/
time Applications and Infrastructure Area", BCP 67,/
RFC 5727, March 2010.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
If the Study Group decides to make the reference to the RFC, the reference should always be made by RFC number (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References should not be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic".
|
|
