Re: [Insipid] Timing for publishing draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id

[James Polk <[e-mail]>]

Gonzalo

I, however, do not agree with draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id being 
published as an informational RFC before the INSIPID solution is 
published as a standards-track. Nor do I want this document IANA 
registering the SIP header Session-ID, such as it currently attempts 
to do. At best, they should be consecutive RFC numbers with the 
INSIPID solution number having the lower number. If that means the 
kaplan draft has to wait in the RFC-Editor queue for the solution 
draft - so be it. That's what Dan R. from his Gen-Art review stated 
as his first major issue with the kaplan draft. Robert Sparks backed 
that opinion up by agreeing with that (and the rest of Dan's review). 
Gonzalo Salgueiro, one of INSIPID's WG chairs, says he stated that 
same view in a previously sent email to this list.

INSIPID, from its inception, has had the charter item to IANA 
register this SIP header, and the draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id is 
not even a WG item, so why is everyone now in such a rush to have 
this draft do what a WG is supposed to do? Could it be the kaplan 
draft couldn't create a WG to form consensus on its own, so now folks 
are wanting to rush ahead of themselves to claim WG consensus where 
there wasn't any such consensus within any WG, let alone INSIPID?

James

At 11:39 AM 9/10/2013, Atle Monrad wrote:
>Gonzalo
>
>I understood from the discussions in IETF that publishing of 
>draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id was to document what had been 
>already been documented in draft-kaplan-dispatch-session-id.
>
>If this still is the case, I do not see why waiting will help.
>
>I'd support publishing  of draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id as soon 
>as possible.
>
>/atle
>
>________________________________
>
>
>Atle Monrad
>3GPP CT Chairman
>
>Group Function Technology - Standardization and Technical Regulation
>Ericsson
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
>Sent: 10. september 2013 17:09
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: [Insipid] Timing for publishing draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id
>
>Hi,
>
>as you know, the following draft has gone through an IETF LC and it 
>has gotten a few comments:
>
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id/
>
>Some of the concerns relate to the fact that we are publishing this 
>document before INSIPID produces a solution document, which will be 
>backwards compatible with the solution described in the draft above.
>
>My question to this group is: do we have a reason to publish this 
>draft before the INSIPID solution draft is ready?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gonzalo
>_______________________________________________
>insipid mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>_______________________________________________
>insipid mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid