A Session Identifier for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Document Action: 'A Session Identifier for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' to Informational RFC (draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-04.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'A Session Identifier for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' (draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-04.txt) as Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Richard Barnes. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id/
Technical Summary: There is a need for having a globally unique session identifier for the same SIP session, which can be consistently maintained across Proxies, B2BUAs and other SIP middle-boxes, for the purpose of Troubleshooting. This draft originally proposed a new SIP header (Session-ID) to carry such a value, which is now being defined by the INSIPID WG. Working Group Summary: Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the document? This RFC, which contains the text of an individual Internet-Draft that was submitted originally to the DISPATCH Working Group, is being published now as an Informational document to provide a reference for the work currently being defined in the INSIPID WG. The INSIPID WG Session-ID solution replaces the 'legacy' solution presented in draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-03 and intends to ensure interoperability and backwards compatibility with such legacy Session-ID entities. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The legacy Session-ID solution described in this document is very widely deployed, especially by Service Providers providing 3GPP IMS. The ubiquity of this legacy solution and the requirement that the current INSIPID WG work be backwards compatible with it is the primary driver for its publications as an Informational RFC that can be referenced by the current INSIPID WG documents. This document does not meet the requirements defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts/ Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Gonzalo Salgueiro (INSIPID WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd. Richard Barnes is the Responsible AD.