Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > >> Back to the current document: I have reread s3 of RFC 7206 and there are >> some points that need to be sorted out: >> >> - The term 'end-to-end' is given a slightly specialized meaning in RFC 7206. >> This is

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

hing here depends on what the > decision on the spec of sess-uuid settles as. > > I'd be happy to scan a pre-release of the updated draft before publishing if > you send it along. > > Cheers, > Elwyn > > Sent from Samsung tablet. > > Original messa

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

u need to do something here depends on what the decision on the spec of sess-uuid settles as. I'd be happy to scan a pre-release of the updated draft before publishing if you send it along. Cheers, Elwyn Sent from Samsung tablet. Original message From: "Paul Giralt (pgiralt)&qu

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

Elwyn, Thank you for the review. We should be able to address these issues. See my comments inline.. > > Minor issues: > Interoperability with H.323 > The requirements for the Session Identifier [RFC7206] Section 4.2 stresses > interoperability with H.323. This is mentioned in passing in s1