[Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-07

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Wed, 27 August 2014 04:19 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926AC1A03C6 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.031
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.031 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ps60L4pS6v48 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BECD1A03C2 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (cpe-024-211-197-136.nc.res.rr.com []) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7R4IuiJ010756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <insipid@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:18:57 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1409113137; bh=lwfhrrVtQzfLHOU3Fy0tlHqZj9D58uEzEeta+h2Wqh0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-Id:Reply-To:Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=PWuwnZroF/71K2YL00e9uokHFEy/jy+bMDQ3oV8FtO9uE1ew9F1HwayDcJuTupzG1 m0CK7s+/Ka6tmeP8ydyjZRia2D3haXDsN/rGZm+BXruJP4mNelnqr5rQkfTz16YCh8 mQKKSl/p4vGeNVsS5o9AwiHTdSUXj67KUqgcKLRM=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:19:23 +0000
Message-Id: <em6d8fee1d-1ad4-4cf9-aec9-a1dde627124f@sydney>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.20617.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MB9E992214-8E01-423A-AFCB-6D73978523D1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/li6tC-3HCYKgjWH9vcwPsuN9jyw
Subject: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-07
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: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:19:00 -0000


Please note that we just posted the -07 version of the Session 
Identifier solution draft.

We carefully reviewed all of the comments (as far as we know!) from 
everyone and tried to incorporate all of those into this draft.  We 
really do appreciate all of the great feedback we received.  The 
feedback really helped a lot in improving the text.

Note that some comments conflicted in terms of proposed language, but I 
believe we managed to make changes that aligned with the intended 
request.  There were also some comments that we elected not to make.  As 
examples, Peter suggested some ABNF changes and terminology changes that 
we did not make.  We felt the ABNF was fine as it was, as changing the 
order of productions would not address the stated reason for making the 
change (that and Paul K. gave his blessing already and we didn't want to 
break it).  For other proposed changes, we believed we understood the 
intent and made changes that we believed aligned with that intent.

I would encourage everyone to look at this draft.  If there are 
suggested changes you made that you feel were not addressed and really 
should be, by all means bring it to our attention.  It is possible that 
we overlooked something and/or misunderstood the intent.

The revised draft is here: