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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

OK. I'm now reviewing -13 somewhat carefully.

Regarding the new text in section 5:

    The Session-ID header-value is technically case-INSENSITIVE, but only
    lowercase characters are allowed in the sess-uuid components.
    Receiving entities MUST treat sess-uuid components as case-
    insensitive and not produce an error if an uppercase character is
    received in a sess-uuid.

That can be interpreted to mean that an error should not be reported if 
the uuid contains a "Z". I suggest a tweak to that:

    Receiving entities MUST treat sess-uuid components as case-
    insensitive and not produce an error if an uppercase HEXDIG
    character is received in a sess-uuid.

Now that the intent has been specified, the actual syntax needs to 
match. It currently doesn't. Currently we have:

      sess-uuid           = 32(DIGIT / %x61-66)  ;32 chars of [0-9a-f]

which isn't consistent with the new statement. Instead, now about:

      sess-uuid           = 32(HEXDIG)

And then replace "The production DIGIT is defined in [RFC5234]" with 
"The production HEXDIG is defined in [RFC5234]".

Also in section 5:

    The "local-uuid" in the Session-ID header represents the UUID value
    of the UA transmitting the message.  If the UA transmitting the
    message previously received a UUID value from its peer endpoint, it
    MUST include that UUID as the "remote" parameter in each message it
    transmits.  For example, a Session-ID header might appear like this:

This doesn't mention the possibility that *different* remote-uuids are 
received over the course of the session. I suggest:

    The "local-uuid" in the Session-ID header represents the UUID value
    of the UA transmitting the message.  If the UA transmitting the
    message previously received one or more UUID values from its peer
    endpoint in a session, it SHOULD include the most recently received
    UUID as the "remote" parameter in each message it transmits within
    that session. (Exceptions are explicitly called out elsewhere in this
    document.)  For  example, a Session-ID header might appear like
    this:

Section 7:

The term "3PCC" is used without definition. Should include a definition 
and a reference to RFC3725.

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.)

Also, s/When creating a cascaded conferencing/When creating a cascaded 
conference/

Section 9.3:

It would be very helpful to see subsequent signaling in this case. 
Suppose Alice subsequently sends a reINVITE. What will that look like? 
(Alice will send it with {A,B}. Does the B2BUA change it to {A,C} or 
leave it alone? Either way I presume Carol sends back {A,C}.)

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 1/25/15 4:34 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> So I guess I am looking for responses from Roland J., Paul K, and Brett
> T. as to whether we now have a version to go forward.
> regards
> Keith
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Paul E. Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     *Sent:* 24 January 2015 19:55
>     *To:* DRAGE, Keith (Keith); [e-mail]
>     *Subject:* Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-13
>
>     I think so, but I would like to get positive confirmation from others.
>     Paul
>     ------ Original Message ------
>     From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     To: "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; "[e-mail]"
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     Sent: 1/24/2015 2:20:55 PM
>     Subject: Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-13
>>     Apart from this one issue, does this represent closure of all
>>     issues that are currently being discussed?
>>     Keith
>>
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         *From:* insipid [mailto:[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *Paul E. Jones
>>         *Sent:* 24 January 2015 19:20
>>         *To:* Paul E. Jones; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         *Subject:* Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-13
>>
>>         Folks,
>>         I just noted an alignment problem in the figure in 9.8.1.
>>         I'll fix that in my local copy, but will hold off publishing
>>         another just for that small issue.
>>         Paul
>>         ------ Original Message ------
>>         From: "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>         To: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>         Sent: 1/24/2015 2:12:42 PM
>>         Subject: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-13
>>>         Folks,
>>>         I submitted draft -13 that contains all of the text changes
>>>         suggested thus far.  Please let me know if you see any issues
>>>         in that text.
>>>         I believe all (or at least most) of the WGLC comments have
>>>         been addressed.  If that's not the case, we can continue
>>>         discussion on the list of course.
>>>         The chairs have (for a while I might add) expressed a sense
>>>         of urgency to move this along.  So, please let the group (and
>>>         chairs) know if there are other things we need to address or
>>>         whether we can suggest to send this for publication?
>>>         Paul
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> insipid mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>