Content-ID Header Field in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-10
Yes
(Ben Campbell)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2017-07-05 for -07)
Unknown
I'm following EKR's discuss on the interoperability / backward compatibility implications.
Adam Roach Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2017-07-05 for -07)
Unknown
I'm a little surprised that the document didn't end up with any text detailing the historical context for formally adding this mechanism. I would expect to see some discussion explaining that the use of Content-ID as a SIP header field has been inferred as acceptable for years, and that so many IETF participants had taken it as given that Content-ID was *already* a registered SIP header field that it appears in examples in (for example) RFCs 5368 and 6080. While I think the document would serve its intended purpose as-is, I believe that more explanatory text in the Introduction section to clarify that this is an attempt to formalize already-assumed (and likely deployed) behavior -- rather than simply casting it as a minor optimization -- would go a long way towards dealing with Eric's concerns.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -07)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-07-06 for -07)
Unknown
I've checked whether this is consistent with email use and it seems to be. Note that RFC 2392 says: The Content-ID of a MIME body part is required to be globally unique. and this document only requires it to be unique within a message. I don't think the difference in restrictions makes any real world difference, because I don't think applications enforce uniqueness of Content-IDs between different messages.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-07-05 for -07)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-07-05 for -07)
Unknown
This document seems rather gratuitous to me. I agree it's somewhat of a misfeature not to be able to have Content-ID in the SIP headers, but as the examples in this document make clear, there's a straightforward workaround. It's unclear to me that there is actually sufficient benefit to this mechanism to publishing a standards track document with this change.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown