IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Insipid] Alignment with RFC 6665 in draft-ietf-insipid-session-id

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Sat, 11 April 2015 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 AAB7F1A8F50 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 7cceYRSX5lT8 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4C701A8F46 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 8C6CB5FD31D7C; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 00:46:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t3B0kquJ005099 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 11 Apr 2015 02:46:52 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA10.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.6.106]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 02:46:52 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Alignment with RFC 6665 in draft-ietf-insipid-session-id
Thread-Index: AdBn5my/eVMrGT3rGkOqM52EMoNPgQMCnh0A
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 00:46:51 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B696F3E86@FR712WXCHMBA10.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B4A11D6A5@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B4A11D6A5@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/CEI9NvGP7juh8sul0H_HNHijeq4>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Alignment with RFC 6665 in draft-ietf-insipid-session-id
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: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 00:46:56 -0000

It would be nice to see a few more providing their views on the following issue so we can finalise what sort of change we should be making.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: insipid [mailto:insipid-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Sent: 26 March 2015 17:01
> To: insipid@ietf.org
> Cc: Adam Roach
> Subject: [Insipid] Alignment with RFC 6665 in 
> draft-ietf-insipid-session-id
> 
> (As WG chair)
> 
> WG please address the following issue.
> 
> We have a couple of examples showing REFER usage in this 
> document (section 9.2 and section 9.2).
> 
> RFC 6665 deprecates the usage of in-dialog REFER, so the only 
> source for such usage would be interoperation with legacy systems.
> 
> Section 9.2 (with the in-dialog usage) appears first.
> 
> 1)	Should section 9.2 be included in the document at all, 
> because it is at variance with the normal operation specified 
> in RFC 6665?
> 
> 2)	If section 9.2 does appear in the document, should we 
> reverse the order of the examples?
> 
> 3)	If section 9.2 does appear in the document, should 
> there be some extra text explaining the variance from RFC 
> 6665, and if so what?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> insipid mailing list
> insipid@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email