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

"Ben Campbell" <> Wed, 17 August 2016 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9318A12D0FD; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.147
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I6nGQrUBfMgB; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E996E12D0FB; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u7HMcYhr084370 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:38:34 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: "Ben Campbell" <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:38:34 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Elwyn Davies <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:38:42 -0000

(+ Elwyn so he can correct me if I mischaracterize anything.)

I'd like to get other AD's opinions on Elwyn's concern.

To recap, draft-ietf-insipid-session-id normatively references RFC 7206 
due to some definitions. 7206 is an informational requirements draft, of 
the sort we might or might not agree to publish if the decision came up 
again. Elwyn argues that, since the information RFC may not have gotten 
the same level of review as a PS would have, that it's not appropriate 
to allow a normative downref. He argues that the authors should instead 
copy the definitions into the draft in question.

My counter argument is that the definitions in RFC 7206 (Namely 
"communication session" and "session-id") are fairly long and nuanced, 
with a fair amount of discussion.



On 15 Aug 2016, at 16:03, Ben Campbell wrote:

> 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 
> 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
> telechat.)
> 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.