Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-10: comments

Brett Tate <> Tue, 20 January 2015 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D121B2ADC for <>; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:48:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mWnbcG6mZYZE for <>; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 221311B2ABB for <>; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n8so29658084qaq.6 for <>; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:48:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=GwmITuTT32fCoqWfyaCSHmAcxNW/SVurkRHw4mPDt2I=; b=BBAyWeSpS6f+a/zv7O14SSq3rR4D/8G9bBV9dK9v6LxG7p3dc0H/4XpM9zI7aTMioY 0GR/iq9CN0P85xhbfSA9vhJHbEeuVEXTym/t49hsUkoXpAnD2QggJtxezIS/p/BEX/WS qKzAVllP7ffXOnI4Oidz5Uee0szDPJCB6v7QZGLlT668NC9mEMWdOiwkRSRnqUvSIHi4 VW8brzU+KSCFqWVUXiLytphGkN711NHLCaxeRkPjbhJsHWe74FNj/52pJv3bnXmYPa/p WkUHBtAAsj6EsBFcSIAct2XDX+6DhQuposPNQ5g6Ul8Q57Rny26VozzvOoYbhF/DiC4Z 5fmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlkCsW26lrRpdY4/UU5DngMcVqLWSzIeovcrf2MlPpRlCu7GG2moWuiMKNUV3XGlEbZg4+/JkvQC4LG+NF2MNXbD0GMiw2O+MJYINl6KnkagLOUtnU=
X-Received: by with SMTP id q9mr21712422qaq.48.1421779727233; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:48:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Brett Tate <>
References: <> <em4c32b4ef-5003-4104-9aa4-461b009cc07f@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <em4c32b4ef-5003-4104-9aa4-461b009cc07f@sydney>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKtAcWFyzP0Kj1s4mgLhtXH5A2QN5sPuzeg
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:48:46 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-10: comments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:48:50 -0000


Thanks for the response; reply is inline.

> I don't think it should be necessary to talk about
> 487, etc. The rules for how to process messages when
> a Session-ID is present are consistent for all
> exchanges. The CANCEL one is a special case and you
> successfully argued your point for why it should be
> exactly like the one found in the INVITE (.. and
> with normative language). That's an exception called
> out, but I don't think we need to enumerate every
> response code. 487 should be no different than any
> other 4xx or 2xx, IMO.

During call setup, consider an UPDATE from caller that changed Session-ID
from {A, B} to {A2, B}.

The CANCEL is sent outside of dialog and would contain {A, N}.  If the 487
from B contains the same To tag associated with UPDATE's modification,
should the 487 indicate {A, B} or {A2, B}?  Should the ACK sent by B2BUA
contain {A, B} or {A2, B}?

Same questions except UPDATE occurs during a re-INVITE.

The CANCEL is sent within dialog and would contain {A, B}.  Should the 487
indicate {A, B} or {A2, B}?  Should the ACK sent by B2BUA contain {A, B} or
{A2, B}?



Meet with us at Mobile World Congress 2015 

This email is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If 
you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, 
please notify BroadSoft, Inc. immediately by replying to this message, and 
destroy all copies of this message, along with any attachment, prior to 
reading, distributing or copying it.