Re: [Insipid] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with COMMENT)

"Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <> Mon, 15 August 2016 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A112F12D695; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.768
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fl2aY0jnQLVz; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7A0A12D1BD; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2990; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471283066; x=1472492666; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=mKGKBh9Q8EVZ/fl/jR8AJA8lvcwqWT+GCCsPvwdl7os=; b=bpwb4YRxD6jUVQLiMRKH3XY4LwaS4hnHJ3z50l2OaPfcXIRyD5Kwwt3Y m7ztjQMgEg5GvXvLtAia4uvbY3kjhOyV8Jli7wUCsdTnJ7CBnPrhv0Q1K NoIfEPqEYsZNMhN2EAjl9wAAXtqBcCJdbTPBLZXsPLaJ6UBH14Ue65aO+ U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,526,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="309212082"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Aug 2016 17:44:25 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7FHiPGL020124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:44:25 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:44:24 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:44:24 -0400
From: "Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZCdzIE5vIE9iamVjdGlvbiBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRm?= =?utf-8?Q?-insipid-session-id-26:_(with_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHR9xACxdbKmCLZ7kWg0pNZmrnnM6BKjj+A
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:44:24 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>, Christer Holmberg <>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draf?= =?utf-8?q?t-ietf-insipid-session-id-26=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:44:31 -0000


Thanks for the comments. The intent is for this draft to replace the functionality described in RFC 7329, not just update it. For all intents, it is a new specification that just happens to be designed to be backwards compatible with 7329. 

I’m referring to the differences between obsolete and update here:

Obsoletes xxxx refers to other RFCs that this one replaces;
Obsoleted by xxxx refers to RFCs that have replaced this one.
Updates xxxx refers to other RFCs that this one merely updates but
does not replace); Updated by xxxx refers to RFCs that have updated
(but not replaced) this one.  Generally, only immediately succeeding
and/or preceding RFCs are indicated, not the entire history of each
related earlier or later RFC in a related series.

It seems to me that Obsoletes is appropriate because the intent is to do away with the old behavior, as it has several deficiencies that are addressed by the new draft. The new draft is also significantly different than 7239 in a variety of ways for which I’d be happy to provide more details if needed. 


> On Aug 15, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <> wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: No Objection
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm wondering, given that RFC 7329 is informational and given that this
> doc is backwards-compatitile to it, if this doc really obsoletes RFC7329,
> or just updates it...?