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

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 02 August 2011 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 6FD3B21F86DD; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-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 42ctrOzzdRJ4; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00710228006; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.105] (pool-173-71-50-10.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.71.50.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p72IvS8i098559 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:57:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <DC49588FF3643F43B3A2A8F6F0A625F0284638642A@mailbox1.acmepacket.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:57:28 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <69373B11-F46D-4F88-B4A8-BF56A8EC2624@nostrum.com>
References: <20110802145359.C9DEE98C50D@rfc-editor.org> <DC49588FF3643F43B3A2A8F6F0A625F0284638642A@mailbox1.acmepacket.com>
To: Bob Penfield <BPenfield@acmepacket.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 173.71.50.10 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com, schooler@research.att.com, rsparks@dynamicsoft.com, "sip@ietf.org List" <sip@ietf.org>, schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu, "SIPCORE \(Session Initiation Protocol Core\) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>, Keith Drage <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, alan.johnston@wcom.com, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, mjh@icir.org, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.com>, Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.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
Reply-To: "SIPCORE \(Session Initiation Protocol Core\) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>
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 18:58:47 -0000

(Attempting to move this to the sipcore mailing list)

Further, they're only going to make sense for 1xx that is sent using 100rel.

So the errata as submitted is incorrect. We could just reject it and move on (my preference given the way we're handling Table 2),
or try to edit it to be more correct and put it in hold-for-document update (see <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html>).

RjS

On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Bob Penfield wrote:

> The entry in the table should be "c" (not "m"). A Contact is not required in a 100 Trying response. The Contact is only required for a 1xx that creates a dialog.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:54 AM
> 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
> Cc: sip@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2910)
> 
> 
> 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