Re: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2769)

[Dean Willis <[e-mail]>]

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.

--
Dean