Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-kaplan-sip-session-id-00.txt

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 14:54 -0500, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 2:33 PM
> >
> > I don't think that reformulating call-id is any harder to deploy than a
> > new header would be.
> 
> You missed an email explaining that: if we mandate not changing "safe"
> call-id values, all b2bua's along the path have to stop changing it,
> and the UAC has to create a "safe" one.  If we do a new header, only
> some b2bua's need to change for matching to work in most cases.  All
> of them would need to pass the header for it to work, but my
> assumption is that's more likely.  It may be a false assumption, but
> from the traces I get to see, it looks like new headers get through
> fairly often. (at least those without URI's)

I'll take your word for that.

I'm still troubled by what I perceive as an inversion of the names: I
think of a 'session' as something that happens within a 'call'.  I
believe that you're looking for something that's a parent of 'call-id's,
not a child.  Might I suggest 'Call-Set-Id'?

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip