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

["Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[e-mail]>]

> 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.

Fully agree.
> 
> 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.

The reality is that the backwards compatibility between the INSIPID Sess-ID mechanism and the kaplan draft is still undetermined and we cannot yet make a definitive statement on how it will look.  Assuming the Session-ID header field is (re-)used, the ABNF can't be identical because the session identifier used for INSIPID MUST address requirements that the kaplan id does not meet; so construction of the id will be different.  At this point the most that can be said is that one won't break the other (through non-intersection like using different header field names, etc.) or through direct backwards compatibility (same header field name but the INSIPID with expanded ABNF that plays nice with the kaplan id).

Cheers,

Gonzalo

> 
> /a