IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Insipid] Alignment with RFC 6665 in draft-ietf-insipid-session-id

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 D84AD1A8902 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 xiC4cHGPNcVD for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C16161A8991 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id A12921A9FF0F6; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:00:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t2QH0wLr025406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:00:58 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.230]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:00:58 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Alignment with RFC 6665 in draft-ietf-insipid-session-id
Thread-Index: AdBn5my/9aP6imTWS46n0Sr4Wh6vWw==
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:00:57 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B4A11D6A5@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/ub-tzx1IRbSO8VZowT3dBnpFmy0>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Subject: [Insipid] Alignment with RFC 6665 in draft-ietf-insipid-session-id
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, 26 Mar 2015 17:01:09 -0000

(As WG chair)

WG please address the following issue.

We have a couple of examples showing REFER usage in this document (section 9.2 and section 9.2).

RFC 6665 deprecates the usage of in-dialog REFER, so the only source for such usage would be interoperation with legacy systems.

Section 9.2 (with the in-dialog usage) appears first.

1)	Should section 9.2 be included in the document at all, because it is at variance with the normal operation specified in RFC 6665?

2)	If section 9.2 does appear in the document, should we reverse the order of the examples?

3)	If section 9.2 does appear in the document, should there be some extra text explaining the variance from RFC 6665, and if so what?

Regards

Keith

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email