Subject: [Insipid] INSIPID Req#1 - comments?

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:01:37 -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#1 as currently written in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-insipid-session-id-reqts-00.txt

    REQ1: It must be possible for an administrator or an
    external device which monitors the SIP-traffic to use
    the identifier to identify a set of dialogs which have a
    relationship with each other, such that they represent
    the same SIP session, with as high a probability as
    possible.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:58:59 -0400

> the same SIP session, with as high a probability as

Re: "identify a set of dialogs which have ***a*** relationship"

Does "a relationship" mean some particular relationship to be specified 
as part of this process? Or does it mean any relationship of interest to 
the administrator? Or what?

There needs t be more specificity here.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:01:04 -0400

> Does "a relationship" mean some particular relationship to be specified as
> part of this process? Or does it mean any relationship of interest to the
> administrator? Or what?

Relationship, as in "dialog 1" is for the same call as "dialog 2" (which
might look quite different after they pass through an SBC).  Or, it might be
that "dialog 1" and "dialog 2" are in the same conference.

Suggested wording?

Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:07:09 -0400

> that "dialog 1" and "dialog 2" are in the same conference.

Its difficult, because there is not good terminology for what is being 
defined. How about:

    REQ1: It must be possible for an administrator or an
    external device which monitors the SIP-traffic to use
    the identifier to identify those dialogs which were
    at some point in time components of a single end to
    end SIP session. (E.g. parts of the same call.)

I'm not in love with this, but I think it gets closer.
I left out the part about probability, because I don't think it adds 
anything. It is probably the case that this requirement will not be 
fully met by any mechanism. But the adequacy of the mechanism will be 
debated.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:31:21 -0400

OK.. I changed REQ1 to read as you propose.

Paul