Since, as Iñaki noted, implementations are almost always getting this right, I plan to put this errata into the "Hold for Document Update" state (see <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html>).
RjS On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:56 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2011/4/8 Dean Willis <[email protected]>: >> I think you're right that the spec is written incorrectly. I believe it >> should describe that the multiplier on T1 doubles with each reset. This is >> not clear in the existing text. So for example, if 8*T1 < T2, then the third >> reset is 8*T1, and if 16*T1 < T2, then the 4th reset is 16*T2 >> >> Otherwise said, MIN(2^N*T1,T2) where N is the repetition iterator. > > That would clarify it, right. > > >>> PS: Sorry for the cross-posting, I don't know which maillist is better >>> to report it. >> >> [email protected] would probably be the right place. > > Finally I've reported an errata for RFC 3261 (hope it's also a good place): > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3261 > > > Thanks a lot. > > -- > Iñaki Baz Castillo > <[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. > Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP > implementation. > Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip. > Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP > specifications. _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation. Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip. Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.
