Re: I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt

Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> Sure, SBC's may not follow this draft. So? UA's and other devices may 
> not follow any given draft/RFC. But right now there's actually a 
> reasonably defendable rationale for why the Call-ID's should be 
> changed. I'm trying to get rid of that rationale. The owners of the 
> SBC's will then be able to tell their vendors "go do this draft", if 
> they find they need SIP extensions to work which rely on the Call-ID 
> not changing. The market will sort out if that's valuable or not.

Which is why an informational draft explaining the problem is useful, 
while a normative document... not quite so much.

Tell UACs: "If you include machine names in your Call-IDs, B2BUAs will 
have reason to change them." There's no MUST or MUST NOT here, just an 
explanation of rationale.

Tell B2BUAs: "If a Call-ID doesn't contain an @ sign, you'll do everyone 
a favor by not changing them, because it allows proper correlation of 
related transactions an dialogs." Again, no MUST; no MUST NOT. Just 
cause and effect.

Then see if people want to play nice. The market will sort out if that's 
valuable or not.

/a
_______________________________________________
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