Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2769)
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 13 April 2011 07:39 UTC
Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: sip@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041FEE070A for <sip@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.271
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.406, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ir7jlfYFZNbk for <sip@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085A0E067E for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so210614qwc.31 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.118.195 with SMTP id w3mr5742580qcq.203.1302680340367; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.75.7 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FD93CD5-990B-49A7-86D9-716F596B0AB8@softarmor.com>
References: <20110408075247.7F888E075D@rfc-editor.org> <4D9F8B50.2080809@nostrum.com> <4FD93CD5-990B-49A7-86D9-716F596B0AB8@softarmor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:39:00 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimd-LO5vDayLWPb3Pg-yfr=O4Q8bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sip@ietf.org, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2769)
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: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:39:02 -0000
2011/4/13 Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>: > On Apr 8, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > >> I don't think this is warranted. This behavior of Timer E is well documented in RFC 3261. It does not bear reiteration every time it is mentioned. >> >> In particular, the quoted paragraph is quite clear on the topic, if one is to finish reading it: >> > > Other than the fact that it appears to disagree with itself, 3261 is quite clear. > > While it is true that the behavior of the timer is correctly-described in one part of the spec, it seems to be incorrectly (or at least misleadingly) described in an early passage. So while reiteration may not be needed, correct initial iteration is probably warranted. Or the misleading initial passage could be excised. > > If you say something only once, say it right. If you must say it again, don't say something different. Just say it more clearly. +1 -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2769) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (27… Adam Roach
- Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (27… Dean Willis
- Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (27… Iñaki Baz Castillo