IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NITs I found while reading the SIP spec

Henning Schulzrinne <schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu> Sat, 02 May 1998 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-confctrl>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id PAA19200 for confctrl-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA19195 for <confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu>; Sat, 2 May 1998 15:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs.columbia.edu (cs.columbia.edu [128.59.16.20]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA09278 for <confctrl@ISI.EDU>; Sat, 2 May 1998 15:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from erlang.cs.columbia.edu (erlang.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.19.141]) by cs.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA00807; Sat, 2 May 1998 18:01:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by erlang.cs.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA05375; Sat, 2 May 1998 18:01:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <354B97A7.7EBED694@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 18:01:11 -0400
From: Henning Schulzrinne <schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu>
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Computer Science
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
CC: "'confctrl@isi.edu'" <confctrl@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: NITs I found while reading the SIP spec
References: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D02971263@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu
Precedence: bulk

Yaron Goland wrote:
> 
> 5 NITs

Will or have been fixed unless discussed below.


> 
> Why does the SIP URL begin with "SIP://" when no hierarchical namespace
> (authority) is being defined? The correct format would be "SIP:".

Mistake has been corrected (see current version).

> 
> Why do short SIP URLs have a production for port but full SIP URLs do not?

Same.

> 
> There is a draft out on how to create telephone URLs
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-antti-telephony-url-04.txt). I
> would suggest carefully reviewing it and thinking of revising your own phone
> production based on the extensive information provided in the draft.

We should probably just reference it.

> 
> Your hostnumber production does not support IPv6

Do you have an existing production?

> I honestly don't grok the headers production. What is the huge quote
> enclosed space for?

Formatting bug.

> While it is true that the short form SIP URL can be used unambiguously it is
> a general principal of protocol design to never provide two ways of doing
> the exact same thing. This just leaves more room for screw ups. I would
> strongly urge the group to reconsider the wisdom of saving 4 bytes (assuming
> the groups uses SIP:) at the cost of increasing complexity.

I had raised this earlier, but gotten no response. Can I take this as
agreement to get rid of the short form?

The only issue I see is that:

From: John Doe <j.doe@acme.org>

would become

From: John Doe <sip:j.doe@acme.org>



> 5.7 6.39 Warning
> 
> The BNF for the warn-code is 2DIGIT but you use a four digit with a "."
> warning format because of your desire to use 606 warnings. I would suggest
> that this is an inappropriate use of the warning header. Instead your should
> introduce new 6xx codes to cover what you now call warnings. Regardless of
> the outcome, either the examples must change or the BNF production for
> warn-code in 6.39 must be changed.

The idea was to be able to provide several warnings in the same message,
which is difficult to do with status codes. Suggestions?

Henning

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email