On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 13:27 -0500, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > I'm still troubled by what I perceive as an inversion of the names: I > > think of a 'session' as something that happens within a 'call'. I > > believe that you're looking for something that's a parent of 'call-id's, > > not a child. Might I suggest 'Call-Set-Id'? > > Yeah, header names are funny things. We want them to mean X, but > other people interpret them to mean Y, and in reality they end up > meaning Z. :) > > I used the term "Session-ID" because it was what I thought common > operators of SIP deployments would expect it to be, because I think > most people think of a Session as actually a superset of a Call-ID - > the Call-ID could change 15 times along the path, but it's the same > session. (in many ways a Call-ID is not a "Call" identifier at all!) > But I grant that it confuses us with media "sessions". > > How about: "Correlation-ID", or even "Opaque-Call-ID"?
It's treacherous -- the original IETF definition was for "session", which meant a particular stream of media bytes. SIP is "Session Initiation Protocol", a wrapper around sessions. But with the use of re-INVITE, one can change the enclosed session in a myriad of ways. If we're talking about a "sequence" of SIP dialogs which are connected end-to-end by B2BUAs, then they all enclose the *same* session. (Which suggests the common identifier should be put into the SDP!) But if we use the identifier to group dialogs in any other way -- and there have been suggestions to do so -- then we can't call the group of dialogs a "session" without creating confusion. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
