Re: [Insipid] Will the identifier pass unchanged through B2BUAs?

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 7/31/13 4:33 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 8:01 AM, "Dawes, Peter, Vodafone Group" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> The question from Gonzalo was about REQ3:
>>
>> REQ3: The solution must require that the identifier, if present, pass
>> unchanged through SIP B2BUAs or other intermediaries.
>>
>> My interpretation was that 1) the solution document must contain the text "SIP B2BUAs or other intermediaries MUST NOT change the Session-ID header field value." and 2) no future drafts/RFCs are allowed to specify that a SIP B2BUA or intermediary may change the Session-ID header field value.
>
> Right.  It's kinda silly requirement wording, but yes ISTM that a statement in a solution document stating "SIP B2BUAs or other intermediaries MUST NOT change the Session-ID header field value", would indeed satisfy REQ3.
>
>
>> This is simplistic but I think it meets REQ3. The discussion on Gonzalo's question seems to me to be about a different requirement along the lines of "how the Session-ID header field is generated and used must be compared with generation and use of header fields that a SIP B2BUA or other intermediary removes or modifies to ensure that a SIP B2BUA or other intermediary does not have any reason to remove the Session-ID: header field."
>
> Yup.  Basically a "why do we think the MUST statement generated by REQ3 would actually be followed or not".

Because if they don't follow it then any product that wants to claim 
conformance to a feature that requires session-id will fail in the 
presence of such B2BUA. If those features are themselves valuable, then 
people will demand products that conform to them.

Yes, I know that is naive, but its all the leverage we have.

	Thanks,
	Paul