IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2910)

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 02 August 2011 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739B611E80D4; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5QXwVUjx+Unh; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6367111E80CE; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so212784qwc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.231.80 with SMTP id jp16mr3049584qcb.25.1312323867804; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.224.212 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <69373B11-F46D-4F88-B4A8-BF56A8EC2624@nostrum.com>
References: <20110802145359.C9DEE98C50D@rfc-editor.org> <DC49588FF3643F43B3A2A8F6F0A625F0284638642A@mailbox1.acmepacket.com> <69373B11-F46D-4F88-B4A8-BF56A8EC2624@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:24:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegf=1=ZqEcs0kE=Y+ykrcd9miPDSN=mzP99-EWytVXdXMwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: "SIPCORE (Session Initiation Protocol Core) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bob Penfield <BPenfield@acmepacket.com>, jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com, schooler@research.att.com, rsparks@dynamicsoft.com, "sip@ietf.org List" <sip@ietf.org>, schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu, Keith Drage <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, mjh@icir.org, alan.johnston@wcom.com, Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2910)
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:24:22 -0000

2011/8/2 Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>:
> Further, they're only going to make sense for 1xx that is sent using 100rel.

This has been discussed in sip-implementors, and that assertion seems
incorrect. As I've reported in the errata:


Section 12.1: "Dialogs are created through the generation of
non-failure responses to requests with specific methods. Within this
specification, only 2xx and 101-199 responses with a To tag, where the
request was INVITE, will establish a dialog."

Section 12.1.1: "When a UAS responds to a request with a response that
establishes a dialog (such as a 2xx to INVITE), the UAS MUST copy all
Record-Route header field values from the request into the response
[...]. The UAS MUST add a Contact header field to the response."

So it's clear that a 1xx response to an INVITE creates a dialog and
then it MUST contain a Contact header and mirrored Record-Route
headers, *regardless* the usage of 100rel.

Am I wrong? if so, why?

Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email