Re: Piling on [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03.txt

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

exactly, we want to avoid having a confusing IANA registry. It needs to
be crystal clear for the implementors who will check it at any point.

In any case, note that a few IPR disclosures on the INSIPID drafts are
being updated to reflect that they also apply to this draft. So, we will
need to wait in order to make a decision... in the mean time, it would
be great to get further input from more participants.

Thanks,

Gonzalo


On 13/09/2013 6:22 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> 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
>