IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BLISS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7463 (4915)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 23 January 2017 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: bliss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bliss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7AF1295AE; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:53:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zu2hHWO588JF; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63DAD1295AD; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.39] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v0NGrUVG030559 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:53:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.39]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:53:30 -0600
Message-ID: <D5E81D25-096D-4381-B536-C8FE3AF43DE2@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170123164212.40CBCB8261C@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20170123164212.40CBCB8261C@rfc-editor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bliss/UqaAN5Amn47ZsyVMZ2YtnGvHTAY>
Cc: aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, alissa@cooperw.in, bliss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BLISS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7463 (4915)
X-BeenThere: bliss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Basic Level of Interoperability for SIP Services \(BLISS\) BoF" <bliss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bliss/>
List-Post: <mailto:bliss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:53:38 -0000

(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 <brett@broadsoft.com>
>
> Section: GLOBAL
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>    To: <sips:alice@example.com>;tag=428765950880801
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    To: <sips:alice@example.com>
>
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email