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

This is  also my opinion.

Laura

2013/9/11 Atle Monrad <atle.monrad@ericsson.com>

> James
>
> This was discussed in the INSIPID session in Berlin under the agenda point:
>
> - Update on draft-kaplan-session-id being published as Historic
>
> I couldn't find the official minutes, but in this discussion the change
> from Historic -> Informational was clarified by Gonzalo and it was agreed
> to submit the draft-kaplan-dispatch-session-id-03 as Informational which
> initiated the versions -00 to -03 of draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id by
> Hadriel over a few days. This is quite well reflected on the INSIPID list
> in emails by Hadriel, Keith and Mary.
>
> As this draft reflects the background and history of the session ID,
> completing this draft will in my view help progress and document what exist
> e.g. in 3GPP.
>
> If it is not possible to agree on a fully backwards compatible solution -
> unfortunate, but I cannot see making changes to history
> (draft-kaplan-dispatch-session-id aka draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id) to
> be of any help. I rather think having a stable base will benefit
> specification of the INSIPID-solution.
>
> Thanks
> /atle
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Atle Monrad
> 3GPP CT Chairman
>
> Group Function Technology - Standardization and Technical Regulation
> Ericsson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> Sent: 11. september 2013 00:10
> To: Atle Monrad; Gonzalo Camarillo; insipid@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Insipid] Timing for publishing
> draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id
>
> 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: insipid-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:insipid-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
> >Sent: 10. september 2013 17:09
> >To: insipid@ietf.org
> >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
> >insipid@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
> >_______________________________________________
> >insipid mailing list
> >insipid@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>
> _______________________________________________
> insipid mailing list
> insipid@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>