End-to-End Session Identification in IP-Based Multimedia Communication Networks
RFC 7989

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 26 and is now closed.

(Ben Campbell) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Comment (2016-08-18 for -26)
No email
send info
The IESG discussed the downref issue in the telechat. The consensus is to allow the downref.

Alissa Cooper (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2016-08-18)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS, leaving my comments below for posterity.

== General ==

I do not think RFC 7206 needs to be a normative reference, but I'm also fine with the downref.

== Section 6 ==

"It should be noted that messages received by an endpoint might
   contain a "local-uuid" value that does not match what the endpoint
   expected its peer's UUID to be.  It is also possible for an endpoint
   to receive a "remote-uuid" value that does not match its generated
   UUID for the session.  Either might happen as a result of service
   interactions by intermediaries and MUST NOT affect the communication
   session."

The MUST NOT at the end there is vague and also seems a bit contradictory to the statement in Section 4.2 that "How a device acting on Session Identifiers processes or utilizes the Session Identifier is outside the scope of this document." Could you clarify what the intent of the last sentence is, and how it squares with the idea that actions taken (or not taken) based on session identifiers are not being specified here?

== Section 7 ==

"The Session-ID header field value included in a CANCEL request MUST
   be identical to the Session-ID header field value included in the
   corresponding request."

Does "corresponding request" mean original request, as in Section 6? I think it would be clearer if the text said "original INVITE request" both here and in Section 6.

== Section 11 ==

'altering the nil "remote-uuid"' seems like it could be phrased less awkwardly.

"Standard implementations SHOULD NOT expect pre-standard implementations to be consistent in their implementation" -- I don't think this needs normative language.

== Section 12 ==

I think the note about billing purposes is outside the scope of the document and should be removed. Or if not, it needs further motivation -- if someone wanted to bill based on the number of sessions a UA initiated, why would using the session identifier be an inappropriate way of counting those?

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2016-08-16 for -26)
No email
send info
I'm a Yes, anticipating that Alissa's Discuss and Suresh's Discuss are resolved, and I appreciate the effort required to produce this specification. It meets an important need.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2016-08-17 for -26)
No email
send info
I am very interested in the resolution of Ben's Discuss.

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Comment (2016-08-16 for -26)
No email
send info
I agree with Alissa's Discuss.

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2016-08-18)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT points in version 27.

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

Comment (2016-08-15 for -26)
No email
send info
I'm wondering, given that RFC 7329 is informational and given that this doc is backwards-compatitile to it, if this doc really obsoletes RFC7329, or just updates it...?

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2016-08-16 for -26)
No email
send info
I agree with Alissa'a discuss that any identifier value that could be used as an index must not persist.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2016-08-17 for -26)
No email
send info
I'm wondering why Section 11. (Compatibility with a Previous Implementation) is even needed if this document is Obsoleting RFC7329.  

I understand that there might be a transition period between the two versions, but the fact that concerns with the compatibility have already come up in Suresh's DISCUSS and that the text itself says that "we will herewith attempt to achieve backwards compatibility" (no guarantee, just an attempt), leaves me with a bad taste that rules are being added that may complicate the new implementation...