Re: [Insipid] Reviews for INSIPID Session-ID solution draft Version 11

"Paul E. Jones" <> Fri, 23 January 2015 04:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4B01A01D6 for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:53:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qpAomVcJcO0X for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:53:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF16A1A0199 for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:53:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t0N4rcHa016702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:53:38 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dublin; t=1421988819; bh=vfyBuF6qxjSlBE1sCT1Df5AuafOW3wd7xYAPSUl2S6Q=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Reply-To; b=I+PNfzaaBp/cLDAxIZ5heXh2o0A1I6YREaKVC8mqx/H9VxwA5ZXjbYbq79x1CUX8G B/ApEaz9HUY3SYG2938wi3rMFwM3HBx9S9nzyas89iD6W+OEx/J8UKbdMvoQJdPSo8 74ocIkq0GJCPiSgotnXQ6ctCl+ewFLW88HPLKf38=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>,
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:53:48 +0000
Message-Id: <em2466bfc4-67fc-471d-a67c-f68f79e9fd9c@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.21372.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Reviews for INSIPID Session-ID solution draft Version 11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <>
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:53:42 -0000


>>>>I think it would be worth to mention that the UUID is case 
>>>>as defined in RFC 4122
>>>The text currently states that the UUID characters are lower-case. 
>>>syntax also enforces this. The RFC 4122 text is funny, because it 
>>>"lower case characters and are case insensitive". I don't know what
>>>that means, except that "F" is not a valid character. Rather than
>>>create confusing language, I'd rather just leave the text as it is in
>>>saying the characters are lowercase.
>>[RJ] OK
>The *safest* (belt and suspenders) way of dealing with this would be to 
>require that senders always insert lower case, but require that 
>receivers properly process either upper/lower case.
>IMO it *should* always have been case-insensitive. IIRC the reason it 
>isn't that way is because Kaplan was case sensitive and there are 
>implementations in the wild that depend on it.

I just looked at RFC 7239 and found this:

    NOTE: The sess-id value is technically case-INSENSITIVE, but only
    lowercase characters are allowed.

Shall we include the same text in our draft?