Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05 - PULL REQUEST
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 05 June 2017 13:52 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BEE129477; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FMhFsEUk7YKj; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 06:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 2578A129474; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 06:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v55Dq9xY076049 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Jun 2017 08:52:10 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D55AE1A0.1DBB4%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 08:52:10 -0500
Cc: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>, "draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id.all@ietf.org>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4608AF75-7F18-4375-B13A-2E8C92CADF0B@nostrum.com>
References: <D54DF3B2.1D309%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <528630A5-051A-4116-9D5C-79755DF347B3@nostrum.com> <645392ed-901f-e6c7-6b19-03ef31fb9865@nostrum.com> <7EE79107-041E-4725-B40C-D1C8350F7411@nostrum.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CBCDE09@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <7B59744D-7A19-46F8-9C17-D67DF1DA9E78@nostrum.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CBD3961@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <D55AE1A0.1DBB4%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/c3qt0AXNJrcoOEQEI7rLuG8H_sA>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05 - PULL REQUEST
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 13:52:19 -0000
Thanks. I spoke to Alexey offline. He concurred that global uniqueness should not be required. Please submit a new version at your convenience. Thanks! Ben. > On Jun 5, 2017, at 2:37 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> > 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:ben@nostrum.com] >> Sent: 31 May 2017 22:03 >> To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> >> Cc: A. Jean Mahoney <mahoney@nostrum.com>; >> draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id.all@ietf.org; sipcore@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05 - PULL >> REQUEST >> >> >>> On May 28, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Christer Holmberg >>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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 >>> >> >
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Ben Campbell
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… A. Jean Mahoney
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Ben Campbell
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Ben Campbell
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Ben Campbell
- Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore… Christer Holmberg