Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03.txt
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 13 September 2013 16:22 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9EF21F9DC7; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sXCDsfCVsiFs; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC7F21E80A7; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orochi-2.roach.at (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r8DGMRVh044563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:22:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <52333BBE.6020706@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:22:22 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03.txt
References: <201309041941.r84Jfm7H004331@rcdn-core-1.cisco.com> <52319BD8.2080106@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <52319BD8.2080106@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:22:37 -0000
On 9/12/13 05:47, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Therefore, this draft registers the Session-ID header field with the > IANA. The designated expert is reviewing this registration, per the > rules in RFC 5727. Yes, I am, and the only reason I didn't rubberstamp this for registration as soon as it hit my inbox is exactly the confusion that having two documents that register the same header field is likely to cause. I've only been peripherally following the events in INSIPID, but I was aware of the existence of a draft intended to document historical usage as well as a separate standards-track document to publish a consensus mechanism (possibly including some degree of backwards compatibility with historical usage). Like Robert, I didn't expect the "historical usage" document to perform any registration, and was quite confused when the IANA approached me about doing so. I don't have a really strong opinion about whether draft-kaplan creates a new entry in IANA that is replaced by a reference to draft-ietf-insipid when it is published (versus not registering anything, and then having the WG consensus document perform the registration). That's not to say that I don't have an opinion on the topic; I just don't feel strongly enough about it to wrestle about it. Here's what I do feel strongly about: whatever the plan of record needs to be clearly recorded in a place that people will find it. If draft-kaplan registers Session-ID, we need two changes to the existing documents: First, draft-kaplan needs to be crystal clear about the plan of record its section 10 (e.g., "This registration is intended to be temporary, and should be removed when [draft-ietf-insipid-...] is published.") Secondly, draft-ietf-insipid must clearly state that its IANA registration *removes* the old reference and *completely* replaces it with a pointer to the standards-track document. The situation that I want to ensure cannot happen is an IANA-registered SIP header field that points to two documents simultaneously, especially if the ABNF is not absolutely identical between the two documents. /a
- Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-kapla… James Polk
- Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-k… James Polk
- Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-k… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-k… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-k… Adam Roach
- Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-k… Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
- Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-k… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-k… Gonzalo Camarillo
- IPR disclosure for draft-kaplan-insipid-session-i… SM
- Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-k… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: IPR disclosure for draft-kaplan-insipid-sessi… Gonzalo Camarillo