[Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id versus RFC 3323

Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com> Tue, 28 June 2016 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <brett@broadsoft.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3257012D552 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=broadsoft-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Hq6EH3-BbV2D for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3240012D504 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id t127so45815250qkf.1 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadsoft-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=d49kGF7Mms9+NvMO1rRVNwG7ug/alkv14AWxqD+T6b8=; b=u7DpvYIAwCPNcjUdHSkf8p7k8QvJd8vkd9al379jFoR/G/1DOBL9PcCeYDhumRV/8S SNpBVgpphCkNfO+Q+ca1EqD+z0vIeIVNkWpFXjL9UmXrQlQ2ml6pnAc0Rl33kJcKEyce c5krnKbpgnJKDtaQ0khbCsLpFynE8aluKVnH9HkfGR9K2kF1iWHx/0RdRArYSvifp/3P zQ1q2SMU50cnpkMaEf20AbMZqU2D0a9yNNQ8BcTnLNT3xy5po+3b9FcvZ+NaOzZoZ9Wq Jj6M7akr/WfUOnUSF4ENRkCMWOZiPtGLwoqhhMmDOWkuWFyGtKOC6D1+F8rahnH4tN8B 0ELA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=d49kGF7Mms9+NvMO1rRVNwG7ug/alkv14AWxqD+T6b8=; b=FAtxLa+SXA3ZXsPDJ8ZP1ENnQB95lRDtzPIHTkJtDuHxQDlrf6cRrmOfAtTtTZw/Q5 tJ9ZfZ5FxMhsDuJrWDihMZJTkcnXzDBJBxcXzO+oUFBBWldVm4Kgnw76kqn16mRNG2bh woHB3KkYaM3rFE/ezfry3Bl0NOmFvJUQHCSEAlBENugiq28R0dAL711G9wokq0+8We7S NWkx1cI5JSWDaQgPz8GMO24K6VAZ2F8kuNaYQ1bb8PWJhF8m6CdYeH00klfUZA8WWd3s YCx54HJpzh0zbha5pospJXrJragicIwbTZYGb+5xzAkc9ZwyK//C8+diEBSc6h8ylWRf AmWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIl6JbT1svOoGGZe9Rb8e1jGBk7FYMtDhBe5IkYBjsB4jGt1m69yZQhZf3yysyT2HZR7ezvPMH97AL6044d
X-Received: by 10.55.138.67 with SMTP id m64mr4068694qkd.78.1467138813327; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdHRa3mN5MulHSFWQ++NJW6ws0igKA==
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:33:32 -0400
Message-ID: <21575ee6e889d5d4fdd306e7ca579185@mail.gmail.com>
To: insipid@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/HO1foU0laMfCRNlXo1g3QoNuCms>
Subject: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id versus RFC 3323
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:33:36 -0000

Hi,

Since the topic of privacy was raised... should the following snippet from
RFC 3323 cause the Session-ID to be removed by the privacy service?  If
not, why?  I thought I'd ask since Session-ID appears to be a
non-essential informational header.

RFC 3323 section 5.3:

"Note that the privacy service MUST remove any non-essential
informational headers that have been added by the user agent,
including the Subject, Call-Info, Organization, User-Agent, Reply-To
and In-Reply-To."

Thanks,
Brett