[Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2910)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 02 August 2011 14:53 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 D764421F8747 for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Dc8fh2fDHZFV for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EDE21F8513 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C9DEE98C50D; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com, schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu, Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com, alan.johnston@wcom.com, jon.peterson@neustar.com, rsparks@dynamicsoft.com, mjh@icir.org, schooler@research.att.com, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, rjsparks@nostrum.com, dean.willis@softarmor.com, drage@alcatel-lucent.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20110802145359.C9DEE98C50D@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:53:59 -0700
Cc: sip@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [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 14:53:50 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3261, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3261&eid=2910 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Section: Table 2 Original Text ------------- Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG ___________________________________________________________ Contact 1xx - - - o - - Corrected Text -------------- Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG ___________________________________________________________ Contact 1xx - - - m - - Notes ----- RFC 3261 says: 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. However Table 2 (page 162) says: Header field where proxy ACK BYE CAN INV OPT REG ___________________________________________________________ Contact 1xx - - - o - - Record-Route 2xx,18x mr - o o o o - Obviously Record-Route is optional since in the absence of a proxy doing record-routing, such header will not be present. However Contact header should appear as mandatory (m) for 1xx responses for INVITE rather than optional (o). Instructions: ------------- This errata 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 (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC3261 (draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-09) -------------------------------------- Title : SIP: Session Initiation Protocol Publication Date : June 2002 Author(s) : J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J. Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, E. Schooler Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Session Initiation Protocol Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2910) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (29… Bob Penfield
- Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (29… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- [Sip] Table2/3 maintenance (was Re: [Technical Er… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (29… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (29… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [Sip] Table2/3 maintenance (was Re: [Technica… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [Sip] [sipcore] [Technical Errata Reported] R… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Sip] [sipcore] [Technical Errata Reported] R… Samir Srivastava
- Re: [Sip] [sipcore] [Technical Errata Reported] R… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Sip] [sipcore] [Technical Errata Reported] R… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [Sip] [sipcore] [Technical Errata Reported] R… Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [Sip] [sipcore] [Technical Errata Reported] R… Romel Khan
- Re: [Sip] [sipcore] [Technical Errata Reported] R… Samir Srivastava
- Re: [Sip] [sipcore] [Technical Errata Reported] R… Paul Kyzivat