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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42191A0199 for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:49:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kRnU14dLYbiF for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E401A0169 for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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;; 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" <>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:49:31 +0000
Message-Id: <em0d510edd-4cb5-4d1e-9c0e-10e7953296f6@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Reviews for INSIPID Session-ID solution draft Version 11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <>
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:49:28 -0000


>>>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 
>>>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.