[Insipid] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with DISCUSS)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 15 August 2016 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietf.org
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C517812B02A; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.29.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147129502776.31658.13716781890885800208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:03:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/o5zt9ef_X9NWEIa-TSiVQgtnslY>
Cc: insipid@ietf.org, insipid-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@ietf.org, christer.holmberg@ericsson.com
Subject: [Insipid] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 21:03:48 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: Discuss

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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


(I'm entering a DISCUSS to make sure we get discussion of this topic
among the ISEG before we progress the document. Whatever the outcome, I
expect to clear the DISCUSS and go back to a YES position after the

Please see the thread resulting from Elwyn's gen-art review from the 2nd
IETF last call, called specifically because of the downref to RFC 7206
that was added after the first LC. This downref was due to the
definitions of "communication session" and "session ID" from that RFC.