End-to-End Session Identification in IP-Based Multimedia Communication Networks
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 26 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
I'm wondering why Section 11. (Compatibility with a Previous Implementation) is even needed if this document is Obsoleting RFC7329. I understand that there might be a transition period between the two versions, but the fact that concerns with the compatibility have already come up in Suresh's DISCUSS and that the text itself says that "we will herewith attempt to achieve backwards compatibility" (no guarantee, just an attempt), leaves me with a bad taste that rules are being added that may complicate the new implementation...
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS, leaving my comments below for posterity. == General == I do not think RFC 7206 needs to be a normative reference, but I'm also fine with the downref. == Section 6 == "It should be noted that messages received by an endpoint might contain a "local-uuid" value that does not match what the endpoint expected its peer's UUID to be. It is also possible for an endpoint to receive a "remote-uuid" value that does not match its generated UUID for the session. Either might happen as a result of service interactions by intermediaries and MUST NOT affect the communication session." The MUST NOT at the end there is vague and also seems a bit contradictory to the statement in Section 4.2 that "How a device acting on Session Identifiers processes or utilizes the Session Identifier is outside the scope of this document." Could you clarify what the intent of the last sentence is, and how it squares with the idea that actions taken (or not taken) based on session identifiers are not being specified here? == Section 7 == "The Session-ID header field value included in a CANCEL request MUST be identical to the Session-ID header field value included in the corresponding request." Does "corresponding request" mean original request, as in Section 6? I think it would be clearer if the text said "original INVITE request" both here and in Section 6. == Section 11 == 'altering the nil "remote-uuid"' seems like it could be phrased less awkwardly. "Standard implementations SHOULD NOT expect pre-standard implementations to be consistent in their implementation" -- I don't think this needs normative language. == Section 12 == I think the note about billing purposes is outside the scope of the document and should be removed. Or if not, it needs further motivation -- if someone wanted to bill based on the number of sessions a UA initiated, why would using the session identifier be an inappropriate way of counting those?
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
The IESG discussed the downref issue in the telechat. The consensus is to allow the downref.
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes
I'm a Yes, anticipating that Alissa's Discuss and Suresh's Discuss are resolved, and I appreciate the effort required to produce this specification. It meets an important need.
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Alissa's Discuss.
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
I am very interested in the resolution of Ben's Discuss.
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Alissa'a discuss that any identifier value that could be used as an index must not persist.
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT points in version 27.
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection