Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05 - PULL REQUEST

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>Thanks.
>
>I spoke to Alexey offline.  He concurred that global uniqueness should not be required.
>
>Please submit a new version at your convenience.

Version -06 submitted :)

Regards,

Christer




> On Jun 5, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Nobody has indicated a need for globally uniqueness, so my suggestion 
> is to merge the PR and submit a new version of the draft.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/06/17 00:41, "Christer Holmberg" 
> <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I really think that mandating global uniqueness, for a possible 
>> use-case that nobody is still aware of, is overkill.
>> 
>> IF such use-case comes up, someone can always update the spec in 
>> order to mandate a globally unique value for such use-case. 
>> Alternatively, the value can be used together with some other 
>> value(s) (Call-ID, transaction-id, CSeq etc etc etc) in order to create a unique reference.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Christer
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 31 May 2017 22:03
>> To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: A. Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>; 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05 - PULL 
>> REQUEST
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 28, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Christer Holmberg 
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>>>>> I have created a pull request, based on your comments:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-content-id/pull/6
>>>>>> The diff looks fine. We probably want to make sure the WG shares 
>>>>>> the opinion that the Content-ID will never be referenced from 
>>>>>> outside the SIP message.
>>>>>> Jean, do  you have thoughts on that from the shepherd perspective?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The WG did discuss whether the Content-ID could be used outside of 
>>>>> the message.
>>>>> The takeaway was, that since a SIP header has non-MIME fields, the 
>>>>> Content-ID can't really refer to the entire message, and thus 
>>>>> would not be useful outside the message.
>>>> 
>>>> There seems to be two ideas intertwined there; namely the idea of 
>>>> what a content-ID identifies, and the idea of whether a content-ID 
>>>> could be referred to from outside the containing SIP message.
>>>> But I take your comment to mean that both were discussed. Is that 
>>>> correct?
>>> 
>>> As far as I remember, we did not discuss the possibility of 
>>> referencing a body outside the SIP message.
>>> 
>>> However, nobody has requested for that possibility, so I don't think 
>>> we need to cover it. If someone, as some point, see a need for it, 
>>> he/she can update the spec and define how it is done, what impacts 
>>> it has on the uniqueness etc.
>> 
>> It’s kind of hard to define extra-message references later if the 
>> initial version does not require global uniqueness. If people want to 
>> leave that option open, then global uniqueness may still make sense 
>> now. I’m okay with it either way as long as the WG has thought it 
>> through, and hasn’t just picked it arbitrarily.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Christer
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>> However, I wasnąt sure how to address the following comment:
>>>>>> "1.2 and 1.3: A sentence or two that more strongly contrasts 
>>>>>> "body part" vs "message-body" would be helpful. I think that some 
>>>>>> people will think of a message-body as still a body-part.˛ I 
>>>>>> think section
>>>>>> 1.1 describes the difference between a message-body and a body-part.
>>>>>> I donąt think we should copy/paste that in sections 1.2 and 1.3.
>>>>>> Or, did I misunderstand you comment?
>>>>> On reflection, I think this might be fine like it is. I know that 
>>>>> some people casually refer to the entire body as still a “part”, 
>>>>> but that doesn’t seem to be reflected in the MIME RFCs. Let’s see 
>>>>> if anyone comments in LC.
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Christer
>>> 
>> 
>