Subject: Re: [Insipid] REQ10: evaluation

From: Brett Tate <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:48:18 +0000

Hi Paul,

> If changing the charter is what it take, yes.  But is it 
> necessary?

Based upon Keith's email, I assume that it is necessary; however hopefully the chairs will comment on the topic again.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/current/msg00255.html 

<snip>

> I'm not opposed to the wording in that sentence, as 
> changing it to consider forked cases would make it overly 
> complex.  Perhaps the one thing we need to add is that we 
> have to recognize the fact that a call does not stay
> permanently fixed at a point of termination.  For that 
> matter, the point of origin is not necessarily fixed. Since 
> either Alice or Bob can be exchanged for a different 
> endpoint (or multiple endpoints), we need a mechanism that
> is flexible enough to accommodate those changes.  That's 
> what our proposal was about from the start, but somehow the 
> charter is interpreted more strictly and, as such, does not 
> consider pre-answer situations or mid-call interactions.

My understanding is that it is interpreted more strictly because of objections associated with the proposed charter which allowed the session identifier to change within a dialog.  The current charter is significantly different from the one that "shocked" Cullen; however the items that were removed are apparently still being addressed.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg03821.html

Thanks,
Brett