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

Samir Srivastava <samirs.lists@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 04:15 UTC

Return-Path: <samirs.lists@gmail.com>
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 AC80B11E80A7; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 tPlTzsTrMt9B; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28A421F8557; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so7509870pzk.18 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bqDPNesYp8IJ1SF2K+iHxV/OUvUtKkpIA3MKeh9p8IE=; b=ITJf4z9uue90LQjw9BdCRd5PObRQyrm7bRfKy5EEPKBuSJ+zsmQSq1is0hswNuBFWS OkCehutdeboSXTeruqbhpHyd2xw0KVeku7FcbAa4xdqgODTy6TzVtnhUUMfl0ml48vI8 6sfo5F7UpXZNdvsc4X1IEYlnILdWYUrHniFjY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.48.14 with SMTP id v14mr1541153wfv.103.1312517743833; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 21:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.43.7 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFQP3_afcp=COozZqB+g39LU3XVtYi-tSrxCuyZkOLWbNVasfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110802145359.C9DEE98C50D@rfc-editor.org> <DC49588FF3643F43B3A2A8F6F0A625F0284638642A@mailbox1.acmepacket.com> <69373B11-F46D-4F88-B4A8-BF56A8EC2624@nostrum.com> <CALiegf=1=ZqEcs0kE=Y+ykrcd9miPDSN=mzP99-EWytVXdXMwA@mail.gmail.com> <9B06B312-4BCF-499D-979F-33D8E70DAD5A@nostrum.com> <CAFQP3_afcp=COozZqB+g39LU3XVtYi-tSrxCuyZkOLWbNVasfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:15:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK+Spiwx+zJb=ccc0aL1bLVb6faSVCQcOYKJsHz_jnHUpmDnVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Samir Srivastava <samirs.lists@gmail.com>
To: Romel Khan <romel.khan@idt.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "sip@ietf.org List" <sip@ietf.org>, "SIPCORE \(Session Initiation Protocol Core\) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sip] [sipcore] [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: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:15:29 -0000

Hi, IMHO presentation of information in tabulated form helps a lot to
starters. Like ABNF it helps parser developers (expert of syntax &
semantic analysis) to develop it without referring each line of SIP
rfc's. 3262 or 100rel should have updated table  Ideally each
subsequent RFC should conisder table updation. Tabulation of
information will be done by vendors internally anyway. So do it in
community. SIP needed hitchakers guide. Simplicity for starters
please. Regards Samir

On 8/4/11, Romel Khan <romel.khan@idt.net> wrote:
> So it is useful if one of UAS or UAC requires it, but it does not have to be
> mandatory. Some comments:
> -- RFC3261 mentions early dialog without mentioning RFC3262. Then it seems
> logical to me that it needs to be made clear in this RFC3261 that early
> dialog must mean Contact and Record-Route (if Record-Route was received in
> INVITE) headers is mandatory in 1xx without reference to 100rel.
>
> -- A UAS could always send 1xx with headers that are required for early
> dialog but it doesn't have to enforce 100rel (eg because the origination or
> UAS side itself may not support reliable provisional response handling, or
> reliable provisioning not really required for its operation). UAS could send
> "support:100rel" if it supports it, or it would not send it if it doesn't
> support this. In my opinion, if UAC hasn't sent 100rel required, it should
> be up to the UAS to decide whether to enforce 100rel
> (with "required:100rel") if its application really requires SIP requests
> before call answer. If the origination side (UAC) side has a need to send
> early requests, like UPDATE, then the UAC should require 100rel from the
> termination side (UAS) by sending this in INVITE. In a VoIP service provider
> world, these kind of capabilities are configured during interconnect turn
> up.
>
> -- I notice that some vendors gateway implementations, even if gateway is
> the termination side, require 100rel for the gateway to receive pre-answer
> requests such as UPDATE. This really didn't have to be this way. I have
> always seen these gateways, when it is the termination side, respond back
> SIP 183 with the headers that create early dialog. So if the origination
> side received the SIP 183 response, then there is no reason for the
> origination side to now not be able to send UPDATE request. Also, no
> reason for the termination gateways to not accept the SIP UPDATE without
> requiring PRACK.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> (removing the rfc-editor and trimming the distribution to the lists)
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>
>> > 2011/8/2 Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>om>:
>> >> 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?
>>
>> Not wrong, just incomplete. This will create an (early) dialog at the UAS.
>> It may or may not create a dialog at the UAC without 100rel since the
>> message may never get to the UAC. Where I said "make sense" above,
>> it might have been better if I had said "be useful".
>>
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Iñaki Baz Castillo
>> > <ibc@aliax.net>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > sipcore mailing list
>> > sipcore@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>> This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
>> Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP
>> implementation.
>> Use dispatch@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip.
>> Use sipcore@ietf.org for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP
>> specifications.
>>
>