Re: [Insipid] Reviews for INSIPID Session-ID solution draft Version 11

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Fri, 23 January 2015 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 C42191A0199 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:49:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 kRnU14dLYbiF for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E401A0169 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (cpe-098-027-048-015.nc.res.rr.com [98.27.48.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t0N4nLD1016437 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:49:22 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1421988562; bh=4aGwjyy82GpSufotYGwf0CXT12fRvYgg/jTZseOjHso=; h=From:To:Subject:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:Reply-To; b=FtfRVcD+5yygdk4YXZDO9N7JiV36xKUS1lMTjDmjQC9QKt4YzUxShKrfVNo+yM610 1zNhonkVli1VaZCovdVX8JmPHRBLOZb72tDlicFc1ntSnimkolekt1BK65YMKiZVga iC3d+8q/SpbZkMNw2esk8yaMkMwzPXYyAE73c3u4=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: R.Jesske@telekom.de, gsalguei@cisco.com, insipid@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:49:31 +0000
Message-Id: <em0d510edd-4cb5-4d1e-9c0e-10e7953296f6@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E5F838FCAD@HE113667.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.21372.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/zsw3mHG4Frxf_FguRoY6cenhUDo>
Cc: insipid-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Reviews for INSIPID Session-ID solution draft Version 11
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:49:28 -0000

Roland,

>>>Section 4.1 (and Section 5)
>>>
>>>Would it be worth to mention if the Session-id is case sensitive.
>>>Since when we will need to implement it we have to explicit state it 
>>>if
>>>it is case sensitive or not.
>>
>>Per RFC 3261, "field names are always case-insensitive". I don't think
>>that needs to be repeated here.
>
>[RJ] I looking here from Operator point of view. We have so many 
>discussions about the case (in-) sensivity of fields with vendors who 
>should know. I'm partly OK with your proposal. But nevertheless it will 
>led to wrong implementations seen from my experience with vendors. And 
>the point the following point will confuse a little. On one point we 
>say UUID lower case but RFC3261 points that header filds are case 
>insensitive. Thus I would at least prefer a note.

I'm open to adding anything that will add clarity.  At the end of the 
last paragraph in Section 5 seems to be the right place, since that is 
where we explain that the UUID is lower-case hexadecimal characters.   
However, what I'm not sure about is what else to say.  If you can 
suggest text that makes this clear, I would appreciate it.

Paul