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

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:

> At this point I am half tempted to suggest that we just agree to publish the Kaplan draft as historic, and then close this WG.
> 
> I say this because I don't think:
> - we can reach agreement to make the Kaplan draft an RFC.

We don't need to "reach agreement" to publish an Informational RFC.  It's not standards-track, and not even a WG doc.  All it was ever going to be published as was Informational, as far back as 2010.


> - the current work is going to yield something
>  that will achieve its goals and be backward compatible

I think it's premature to give up on it.  I mean we haven't failed yet, afaik.  We only really started getting down to the nitty-gritty stuff this past month.


> - pursuing the current work with a new header name would
>  achieve wide deployment, given that a fairly large
>  community is committed to Session-ID.

I think there might be conflicting goals/requirements within the WG.  Fulfilling one might conflict with fulfilling the other.  It's not just about backwards-compatibility, but also about the need for re-INVITEs/UPDATEs.  A new header name might avoid those conflicts.  For vendors that want/need to handle conference servers and updating all participants with the new correlation value, a new header would be usable.  For ones that just need to correlate the basic call scenarios without extra messages, the legacy one would be usable.

-hadriel