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

"Paul E. Jones" <> Fri, 23 January 2015 04:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD99D1A020A for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:40:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rFCEt1LNteh for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 927D01A0211 for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t0N4dxPw015851 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:39:59 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dublin; t=1421988000; bh=NniMnRM4t+KAgOpom/D0ti3wrzdK1/AqnEK6RJcFdOc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Reply-To; b=ePyR+xyxEX7BzVSHNrRWh15QGHLk3hj6mre8WBSJIpC9sdZ5y9CSFOaPVUyZLhkSu p89LUK2KG6KKdu+WYl3D3H/lqjqFBeArn9x6qk1gNX/F2D/V+ku2B4YDyDj9lIjCAi 91dZgj6pXL7KLVgtlIhD4W4lhdKsKqI6L12FT7+Y=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: Brett Tate <>,,
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:40:09 +0000
Message-Id: <em6dd67f9b-2dd8-4f68-b9d1-29082e7e4f62@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.21372.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-10: comments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <>
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:40:17 -0000


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

Why would the UPDATE have a different "local" UUID value than what was 
sent before?  I appreciate the "remote" value might have changed.  Maybe 
that's what you meant, but Alice would never change her "A" value.

Once I understand that, perhaps I can better answer your question below. 
  I think the answer, regardless, is going to be that the 487 should have 
the same Session-ID value as the CANCEL or INVITE for the "remote" part. 
  The "local" part would have the sending endpoint's UUID value, since we 
do not have a rule that says otherwise.  So, I'd expect some endpoint 
"B" to send this as a Session-ID to Alice in response to a CANCEL or 

    Session-ID: B; remote: A


>The CANCEL is sent outside of dialog and would contain {A, N}. If the 
>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 
>indicate {A, B} or {A2, B}? Should the ACK sent by B2BUA contain {A, B} 
>{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. 
>you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in 
>please notify BroadSoft, Inc. immediately by replying to this message, 
>destroy all copies of this message, along with any attachment, prior to
>reading, distributing or copying it.