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

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

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD99D1A020A for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:40:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rFCEt1LNteh for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 927D01A0211 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (cpe-098-027-048-015.nc.res.rr.com [98.27.48.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (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; d=packetizer.com; 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" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>, draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@tools.ietf.org, insipid@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:40:09 +0000
Message-Id: <em6dd67f9b-2dd8-4f68-b9d1-29082e7e4f62@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <72e3bd0ddec802bd4fa5fd495c2bab2f@mail.gmail.com>
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: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/cI27vpRhVGxd2IAKh9oRgbDTuYQ>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-10: comments
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <insipid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/>
List-Post: <mailto:insipid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:40:17 -0000

  Brett,

>During call setup, consider an UPDATE from caller that changed 
>Session-ID
>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 
UPDATE:

    Session-ID: B; remote: A

Paul

>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.