Re: [Insipid] Use of Session-ID in 100 (Trying) response
Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com> Fri, 27 March 2015 10:55 UTC
Return-Path: <brett@broadsoft.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEACF1ACD4A for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XwHvY3gBpzDE for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com (mail-qc0-f171.google.com [209.85.216.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92B651A00B6 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcay5 with SMTP id y5so12858189qca.1 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=ESU1XgR61yrfYKQ7uMvkYXHUM8dzwO6hdu56ZR7nVqc=; b=ZwdCbmVdeGIFXcz8vnKOQRXfdkNNsOc9J4g+zUY5ueLGq93JLG8VOOA89R+ij2XQsz OxsardUcpkIK8aryrc5ic56KuD3PtM9aTkBvLcnpn3WUWNvXXmwu/TSxAR7tgGXueWxJ tnTvfMxQWG7V04gubMS0vX5V8JAOg21SoLvMUEDbMc3UczWMHk9tjF3mKNl7BL6t+qaA gYN0Nuh8OVQnK02BLrpjIbbhGAD2DZpW06nNxdnEnAIMNBP2l9qmIFjL5hFODq38cC3J WELshOLmBQsmeEomDxMP6dMPlzTTc8C06A8apOk37CIQvzWsF9yVGe3ZJYDwLWQRJUEO OQCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTnu7vW/mTyf/nyGIm0P7tHPibZpTefCBxFuEUk7JwUK76LFXLssM5JCgeHSadX0X87+fr
X-Received: by 10.140.238.21 with SMTP id j21mr24153041qhc.95.1427453741814; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>
References: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B4A11DADE@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B4A11DADE@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQExPQkdF7WcBwcOFuZkB+EGpF7A+55udvmg
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:55:40 -0400
Message-ID: <58b4d87fe5ad6bb5ad84a497b7b4081f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, insipid@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/5AD_RwM9XsryCss63ONXn5i-iXs>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Use of Session-ID in 100 (Trying) response
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <insipid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/>
List-Post: <mailto:insipid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:55:44 -0000
> I was a little surprised to see the Session-ID header field appearing in 100 > (Trying). In general 100 (Trying) is hop by hop, with a very specific purpose > of telling the preceding entity to turn of timers, and most header fields > never appear in 100 (Trying). Therefore I would have expected this one to be > absent as well. > > Can anyone elaborate on why the current inclusion is in the draft? Based upon Paul's reply, it was because the author's didn't want to special case the 100 response. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/current/msg00870.html Allowing 100 to contain it when sent within dialog is okay with me since it occurs within the context an established communication session. Including it within an INVITE's 100 is a little strange during call setup; however it isn't much different than allowing a To tag to be generated and included within the 100 response.
- [Insipid] Use of Session-ID in 100 (Trying) respo… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Insipid] Use of Session-ID in 100 (Trying) r… Brett Tate