Re: [Insipid] Pre-WGLC INSIPID Session-ID Review Comments

"Adam Gensler (agensler)" <agensler@cisco.com> Thu, 07 August 2014 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <agensler@cisco.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 E1ABB1A0AEF for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 12:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 dPejOM2hErQO for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 12:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA7C91A0B00 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 12:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2078; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407441132; x=1408650732; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=c/5GuAljY3DiJQ+axpNpUdS2YMeoxbz7/IV5mrWuWWM=; b=h8zCxZT/dpmkK7m+EdCNZkje7uvDS/vJnlzAshbKdy4gxYilR26Cm4BN aLNSi99WUS+HJyF+zbMKgANItwMA3p9HqdWyL6SNeosVhh/xCeEX5fPOI Up0Yse6MnY8tzOK56I36e3f0J31dctiUDfVT6N9n3b4qS5Hj+1aAyLLjF E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiEFAK3Y41OtJA2K/2dsb2JhbABagw2BKQTUHAGBGBZ3hAQBAQMBOj8FCwIBCDYQMiUCBA4FiDoIxB4XjxkzB4MvgRwFnBuUcINXbIFG
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,819,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="67411658"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2014 19:52:11 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s77JqBhi010684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Aug 2014 19:52:11 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.232]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 14:52:11 -0500
From: "Adam Gensler (agensler)" <agensler@cisco.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Thread-Topic: [Insipid] Pre-WGLC INSIPID Session-ID Review Comments
Thread-Index: AQHPrCHAO5R9Mjo4aUar507ltET5cJvC62CAgAMCooA=
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:52:10 +0000
Message-ID: <2D16DAA6-F5CC-4765-A16D-168E52121F09@cisco.com>
References: <em89521343-bb6c-4d08-8425-8a2eef3ed78c@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <em89521343-bb6c-4d08-8425-8a2eef3ed78c@sydney>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.117.146.194]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E092C2AD7FD8D94B899D52FC7F354A6C@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/haIziUOjRdf6PyLhtmfSuF5Hoaw
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 14:11:00 -0700
Cc: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Pre-WGLC INSIPID Session-ID Review Comments
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:52:16 -0000

Paul,

That approach sounds good to me.

Best regards,
Adam


On Aug 5, 2014, at 5:55 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> Adam, et al,
> 
> First, let me thank you and the others who have provided invaluable input on the draft.  I haven't yet incorporated all of the proposed textual changes, but I am collecting all of the input and will be making the revisions in the next couple of weeks (I hope).
> 
> Anyway, I wanted to comment now on one:
> 
>> ---
>> 7. Processing by Intermediaries
>> 
>> "When intermediaries transmits a 100 (Trying) provisional responseand when
>> the UUID of the destination UA is unknown, the intermediary MUST place the
>> one known UUID in the "remote-uuid" field and set the "local-uuid" field
>> to the null UUID value. When an intermediary transmits any other
>> provisional response and when the UUID of the destination UA is unknown,
>> the intermediary MUST place the one known UUID in the "remote-uuid" field
>> and MAY set the "local-uuid" field to a locally created UUID value or the
>> null UUID value.
>> 
>> Comment: What's the rational behind the difference in behavior between the
>> 100 and other 1xx responses?
>> ---
> 
> This item was brought up to me today off-list, so this is at least the second time it was raised.  Initially, we had text that said that all provisional responses would have a null UUID if one of the UUID values is not known.  However, that was changed to what we have now since there were cases where that wasn't ideal.  Arguably there are cases here this exception is not ideal.
> 
> What I think might be best is to remove that first sentence and apply the same behavior on intermediaries for all provisional responses.  That means the intermediary might use "null" or might fabricate a UUID if it doesn't know the UUID of the destination endpoint for 100 or any provisional response.
> 
> So unless there is objection, that's the direction I'll go with this one.
> 
> Paul
>