Subject: [Insipid] Use of Session-ID in 100 (Trying) response

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:17:01 +0000

I was a little surprised to see the Session-ID header field appearing in 100 (Trying). In general 100 (Trying) is hop by hop, with a very specific purpose of telling the preceding entity to turn of timers, and most header fields never appear in 100 (Trying). Therefore I would have expected this one to be absent as well.

Can anyone elaborate on why the current inclusion is in the draft?

Regards

Keith

---

From: Brett Tate <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:55:40 -0400

> I was a little surprised to see the Session-ID header field appearing in
100
> (Trying). In general 100 (Trying) is hop by hop, with a very specific
purpose
> of telling the preceding entity to turn of timers, and most header
fields
> never appear in 100 (Trying). Therefore I would have expected this one
to be
> absent as well.

Based upon Paul's reply, it was because the author's didn't want to
special case the 100 response.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/current/msg00870.html

Allowing 100 to contain it when sent within dialog is okay with me since
it occurs within the context an established communication session.
Including it within an INVITE's 100 is a little strange during call setup;
however it isn't much different than allowing a To tag to be generated and
included within the 100 response.