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

What's non-backward-compatible about it?  The text would say a UAC should generate a call-id without the IP/host (which is completely in-line with 3261), and that a UAS must continue to accept a call-id with ip/host.

I'll remove the ABNF change piece since people are worried that may affect backwards compatibility, due to a future strict-compliance parser checking for this update's ABNF and rejecting legacy 3261 ABNF.  So this update would only affect the normative text and not the ABNF.

-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:55 PM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: Adam Roach; SIP
> Subject: Re: [Sip] I-D Inaction: draft-kaplan-sip-secure-call-id-00.txt
> 
> Hadriel,
> 
> I understand your logic. BUT are we agreed that we should be making
> non-backward-compatible normative changes to 3261 (or any of the key
> RFCs) for reasons other than correcting out and out errors and
> ambiguities? Seems like that is the start of SIP/3.0.
> 
> 	Paul
> 
> Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> > Yeah I've been thinking about what you said the other day about this,
> and I think I understand your point, but I still think MUST's and an
> update to 3261 would be good, for the following reasons:
> >
> > 1) We really should want to change 3261 to say MUST NOT put an ip-
> address/hostname in the call-id.  Really in 20/20 hindsight I don't think
> it should have had one to begin with.
> >
> > 2) It's easier for customers to force vendors to do something if there's
> a MUST statement, standards-track RFC, vs. an informational
> recommendation/should.
> >
> > 3) Endpoint UAC vendors should do it *before* getting deployed and being
> told by customers to change after-wards.  Specifically I'm thinking about
> vendors who don't attend IETF and aren't that up-to-speed on all the
> nuances and such.  An update to 3261 with normative mandatory language is
> clearer, I think.
> >
> > -hadriel
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:20 PM
> >>
> >> 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
> >
_______________________________________________
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