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

[James Polk <[e-mail]>]

At 06:23 AM 9/4/2014, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Below are some comments on version -07:
>
>Section 5:
>-------------
>
>I suggest to re-name the section name to "SIP Session-ID Header Field"
>
>You need to split the text into subsections.
>
>Something like:
>
>5.1 General
>5.2 Syntax
>5.3 UA Behavior
>5.3.1 UAC Behavior
>5.3.2 UAS Behavior
>5.4 Proxy Behavior
>5.5 B2BUA Behavior

Christer

Thanks for the review

but... although most SIP Header definitions have taken something like 
the above form,

a) the UAS section would only comprise exactly 3 sentences, conveying 
in essence:
    1 - the UA would receive a SIP request.
    2 - the UA, acting as a UAS for in this transaction, would 
generate a type 4 and type 5 UUID according to RFC 4122 (mirroring 
the type in the SIP request).
    3 - copy the value exactly of the UUID into a new header 
parameter "remote".
    4 - send the SIP response whichever it might be in the response 
(meaning, now, the SIP message will have 2 UUIDs for the remainder of 
this dialog).

and

b) all SIP servers in the signaling SHOULD do the same thing, 
although we can never be sure 'stateless' proxies will do anything 
(with regard to this header); at the same time, we cannot be sure, no 
matter how much we threaten, that B2BUA or SBCs will not muck with this header.

This makes any conventional "Section 5" pretty pointless IMO

thoughts?

James


>Section 6:
>-------------
>
>The text in this section should go into UA Behavior.
>
>Section 7:
>-------------
>
>The text in this section should go into Proxy Behavior and B2BUA Behavior.
>
>
>I do have more comments on section 6 and 7, but I'd like to see the 
>restructuring (as suggested in my comment on section 5) before 
>giving those, because some may go away.
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>
>_______________________________________________
>insipid mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid