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

[Brett Tate <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

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}?

Thanks,
Brett

-- 

Meet with us at Mobile World Congress 2015 
<http://www.broadsoft.com/news/mobile-world-congress/>

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.