Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Sure, SBC's may not follow this draft. So? UA's and other devices may not follow any given draft/RFC. But right now there's actually a reasonably defendable rationale for why the Call-ID's should be changed. I'm trying to get rid of that rationale. The owners of the SBC's will then be able to tell their vendors "go do this draft", if they find they need SIP extensions to work which rely on the Call-ID not changing. The market will sort out if that's valuable or not.
Which is why an informational draft explaining the problem is useful, while a normative document... not quite so much.
Tell UACs: "If you include machine names in your Call-IDs, B2BUAs will have reason to change them." There's no MUST or MUST NOT here, just an explanation of rationale.
Tell B2BUAs: "If a Call-ID doesn't contain an @ sign, you'll do everyone a favor by not changing them, because it allows proper correlation of related transactions an dialogs." Again, no MUST; no MUST NOT. Just cause and effect.
Then see if people want to play nice. The market will sort out if that's valuable or not.
/a _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implement...@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipp...@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
