Subject: RE: [Simple] message-sessions-10 WGLC: unique message ID and failed connections?

From: Ignacio Más Ivars (KI/EAB)<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:12:55 +0200

Paul, Gonzalo:

I agree completely with Gonzalo's comment. That is why I was suggesting that we just add the paragraph from RFC 2822 were the uniqueness of message ID is defined, i.e:

 ======================rfc2822
 The "Message-ID:" field provides a unique message identifier that
   refers to a particular version of a particular message.  The
   uniqueness of the message identifier is guaranteed by the host that
   generates it.  This message identifier is intended to be
   machine readable and not necessarily meaningful to humans.  A message
   identifier pertains to exactly one instantiation of a particular
   message; subsequent revisions to the message each receive new message
   identifiers.
======================rfc2822

That would not introduce any other disruptment to the draft, would it?

/Ignacio

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo
To: Paul Kyzivat
Cc: Ignacio Más Ivars (KI/EAB); SIMPLE mailing list
Sent: 4/13/2005 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Simple] message-sessions-10 WGLC: unique message ID and failed connections?

Paul,

> But, as with everything else, this could get complex in a 3pcc 
> situation. A 3pcc controller might do a transfer using reinvites. As 
> result, one endpoint thinks it has a replacement session, while the 
> other thinks it has a new session. The guy who thinks its a new
session 
> can't very well know what message ids had been used before.

I agree with you on this one. We have already been there (e.g., the 
comedia and the preconditions stuff), and relaying on the concept of a 
SIP session to set the scope of any media-related identifier is not a 
good idea.

Paul and I tried exactly the same in comedia (using identifiers scoped 
by the SIP session) and cocluded that they did not work.

 > Its only
 > soluiton is to use message ids that are guaranteed to be globally
 > unique.

Yes, I agree this is the way to resolve the problem. In fact, I believe 
this is how RFC 2822 defines uniqueness of message identifiers. With 
your proposal we kill two birds with the same stone. We align with RFC 
2822 and we resolve the session mobility problem.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple