Subject: [Insipid] INSIPID Req#4 - comments?

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:03:30 -0500

Figure it is about time I sent these requirements out to the list. 
Comments, questions and wordsmithing are encouraged. Let's see if we 
can leave much of the wordsmithing till the end of the discussion, 
once we have agreed on the requirement's worthiness and contents.

Let's also keep the discussion on *this* thread to just *this* 
requirement for tracking purposes. There are 9 current requirements. 
Therefore, there will be 9 different messages sent to this list.

Here is REQ#4 as currently written in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-insipid-session-id-reqts-00.txt

    REQ4: It must be possible to pass the identifier unchanged
    through SIP B2BUAs or other intermediaries.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:11:58 -0400

> through SIP B2BUAs or other intermediaries.

I'm struggling with "possible" here.
Its *possible* to pass the callid through unmodified.
The problem is that it isn't guaranteed that it will go through 
unmodified. So ideally this would say something stronger, like:

"the identifier MUST NOT be changed when passing through ..."

But I think we all know it will be impossible to meet that. So we must 
be looking for something else. I think it is that the form of the 
identifier should not contain anything that can be easily correlated to 
the identity of either endpoint or to the topology of the network 
connecting them.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:33:27 -0400

On 4/30/12 7:27 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> This is nothing more than an attempt to say that the identifier must not
> be changed. We cannot send a "self destruct" messages to non-compliant
> SBCs, of course, but we can say it is not supposed to be modified and we
> certainly want to ensure it is possible to build a compliant device.

So you are looking for a mechanism that has normative language that this 
not be changed? If so, then lets say so.

Note that its going to be some work to figure out how to make such a 
normative statement. The problem is that we don't currently standardize 
the behavior of B2BUAs regarding how they connect the two sides. What 
you are calling for here would do that. I see no reason why we *can't* 
do that, but it will be new.

But lets hear from Hadriel here, because I'm sure he will have a 
pragmatic opinion on this.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Paul
>
> On 4/26/2012 5:11 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> identifier should not contain anything that can be easily correlated
>> to the identity of either endpoint or to the topology of the network
>> connecting them.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>> _______________________________________________
>> insipid mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>
>