Thanks for the comments. I plan to mark this "hold for update", as usual
for non-urgent editorial errata.
Thanks!
Ben.
On 23 Jan 2017, at 12:19, Brett Tate wrote:
Hi,
I'm not aware of interoperability issues due to what is reported
within
the errata. I've only seen it indirectly cause issues within related
documentation (not code).
After some discussion within sip-implementors, I reported the errata
as
editorial to help others and myself understand the examples and basic
SIP.
I also reported it to help ensure corrected within rfc7463bis (if ever
actually needed).
Sorry about not splitting up the report into multiple errata.
However, it
didn't seem worth the effort to report/discuss the items separately.
Thanks,
Brett
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 11:54 AM
To: SIPCORE
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7463 (4915)
(Adding SIPCORE)
What do people think of this errata report? Has anyone experienced
interop
problems due to the described issue?
Thanks!
Ben.
On 23 Jan 2017, at 10:42, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7463, "Shared
Appearances of a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Address of Record
(AOR)".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7463&eid=4915
--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Brett Tate <[email protected]>
Section: GLOBAL
Original Text
-------------
To: <sips:[email protected]>;tag=428765950880801
Corrected Text
--------------
To: <sips:[email protected]>
Notes
-----
PUBLISH must not contain To tag unless sending within dialog. The
To
tag (428765950880801) appears to be extraneous within the following
SIP messages since there is no explanation about which dialog is
being
shared: section 11.7 F32, section 11.9 F32, section 11.10 F22, and
section 11.14 F48. The To/From URI values within section 11.7 F32
also should be swapped since it does not appear to be intentional
and
is different than the other examples indicating To tag value
428765950880801.
Section 11.4 F2 also has To tag issues since a To tag must be
present
to comply with RFC 3261. Section 11.6 F28 also should not be
missing
a To tag.
Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected.
When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change
the status and edit the report, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
RFC7463 (draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-15)
--------------------------------------
Title : Shared Appearances of a Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Address of Record (AOR)
Publication Date : March 2015
Author(s) : A. Johnston, Ed., M. Soroushnejad, Ed., V.
Venkataramanan
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : Basic Level of Interoperability for SIP
Services
Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
