Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-13

"Paul E. Jones" <> Sat, 31 January 2015 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8C51A19E3 for <>; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:37:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.688
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 AaxEGwNje3fp for <>; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:37:30 -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 485271A0545 for <>; Sat, 31 Jan 2015 15:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t0VNbRLc030090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:37:28 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dublin; t=1422747448; bh=nFMwH1MD+t+kjrsfDZValp1R39PAquw6WsLTZeWOwxI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Reply-To; b=LXQgInNpDDqqFYaqDJwPkQSi9xLUaLTF1JWtTA+TasXewprMvcoqYvNyWA8rw765U VenERcZUgUjbgDBY8/TOALC7C3hJsbdGMZUrwswxMD2TRzDLqhFfGBPVH4DuWdSo4b Ak24BBjFEBDi+rTKcHq8IgkmPKniofNfnbCmWMEA=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>,
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 23:37:47 +0000
Message-Id: <em251e6d5d-834a-414c-87c4-725a632b3be5@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <em6756914a-d169-45b6-94a0-374745d54029@sydney>
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] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-13
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: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 23:37:32 -0000


>>Section 8:
>>Here and elsewhere are references to "cascaded MCUs". Neither "MCU" 
>>nor "cascaded MCU" are defined. I don't know where you go for those 
>>definitions. (There is a definition of MCU in 
>>draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy, but it focuses on media and 
>>isn't sip-specific.)
>I don't know where this is defined, either, though there are many 
>documents that discuss cascaded MCUs (e.g., ITU-T F.702). Let me see if 
>I can find a definition we can reference.

I did some digging and also enlisted Stephen Botzko to dig around a bit, 
too.  There are many references to cascaded MCUs, with the earlier 
document Steve was able to find being H.140 from 1988.  Figure 1 shows a 
cascaded MCU, but is not called that.  There are also references in 
F.702, H.323, and a few other ITU documents.  It's also mentioned in RFC 
4575, but also not explicitly defined.

Perhaps we just leave it alone.  "Cascade" is defined in the dictionary 
as "Arrange (a number of devices or objects) in a series or sequence".  
And, that's what we're describing.  So perhaps rather than go with 
looking for a technical definition, we just leave it up to Websters?