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

[James Polk <[e-mail]>]

At 04:58 AM 9/11/2013, Atle Monrad wrote:
>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.

without having attended Berlin for medical reasons - it's hard to 
make judgements about conversations that occurred within or outside 
of sessions WITHOUT any minutes. The chairs should have posted an 
email to the list about the reasons for the change, but they haven't. 
It's the middle of September, and INSIPID was in July...


>This is quite well reflected on the INSIPID list in emails by 
>Hadriel, Keith and Mary.

Not with the why, or asking if everyone agreed to the kaplan draft 
with this change in mind.


>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.

The kaplan draft does not address more than half the requirements of 
the INSIPID requirements draft. So, in my mind, it is insufficient to 
more forward with this draft as a informational RFC without 
circumventing IETF process and procedures, unless the kaplan doc is 
RFC'd later than the existing solutions draft to remove any and all confusion.


>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.

I don't see how you get here from there.

James


>Thanks
>/atle
>
>________________________________
>
>
>Atle Monrad
>3GPP CT Chairman
>
>Group Function Technology - Standardization and Technical Regulation
>Ericsson
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Polk [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: 11. september 2013 00:10
>To: Atle Monrad; Gonzalo Camarillo; [e-mail]
>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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
> >Sent: 10. september 2013 17:09
> >To: [e-mail]
> >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
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
> >_______________________________________________
> >insipid mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid