[Insipid] Are we getting anywhere?

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 8/22/13 6:29 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> At this point I am half tempted to suggest that we just agree to publish the Kaplan draft as historic, and then close this WG.

Note that I said I was "half tempted", not that I am proposing it.
Its an expression of frustration.

>> I say this because I don't think:
>> - we can reach agreement to make the Kaplan draft an RFC.
>
> We don't need to "reach agreement" to publish an Informational RFC.  It's not standards-track, and not even a WG doc.  All it was ever going to be published as was Informational, as far back as 2010.

I should have been clearer. I was talking about an alternative that 
hasn't been discussed recently - just take up the Kaplan draft again and 
*make it a standard*. Different from publishing it in a non-normative way.

>> - the current work is going to yield something
>>   that will achieve its goals and be backward compatible
>
> I think it's premature to give up on it.  I mean we haven't failed yet, afaik.  We only really started getting down to the nitty-gritty stuff this past month.

Yes, we are still at it. But I see a lot of going in circles.
The impression I get is that the most recent proposed changes lose what 
Paul J was trying to accomplish. ISTM that the result of that will be 
more complex than the Kaplan draft but have no advantages over it.

And your repeated comments that B2BUAs often won't propagate reINVITEs 
that update the value on transfer call into question the workability of 
any two-halved approach.

>> - pursuing the current work with a new header name would
>>   achieve wide deployment, given that a fairly large
>>   community is committed to Session-ID.
>
> I think there might be conflicting goals/requirements within the WG.  Fulfilling one might conflict with fulfilling the other.  It's not just about backwards-compatibility, but also about the need for re-INVITEs/UPDATEs.  A new header name might avoid those conflicts.  For vendors that want/need to handle conference servers and updating all participants with the new correlation value, a new header would be usable.  For ones that just need to correlate the basic call scenarios without extra messages, the legacy one would be usable.

Certainly publishing with a new name is a technical possibility.
But then backward compatibility will require new implementers to include 
both. Will people do that? Or will we just end up with two competing 
standards?

	Thanks,
	Paul