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

Bob Penfield <BPenfield@acmepacket.com> Tue, 02 August 2011 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <BPenfield@acmepacket.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 4773A11E808F for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 oaYjnIqSUIii for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ETMail2.acmepacket.com (etmail2.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832E011E8083 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by ETMail2.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:31:38 -0400
Received: from mailbox1.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.12]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:58:52 -0400
From: Bob Penfield <BPenfield@acmepacket.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com" <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>, "schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu" <schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu>, "Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com" <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, "alan.johnston@wcom.com" <alan.johnston@wcom.com>, "jon.peterson@neustar.com" <jon.peterson@neustar.com>, "rsparks@dynamicsoft.com" <rsparks@dynamicsoft.com>, "mjh@icir.org" <mjh@icir.org>, "schooler@research.att.com" <schooler@research.att.com>, "gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com" <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, "rjsparks@nostrum.com" <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "dean.willis@softarmor.com" <dean.willis@softarmor.com>, "drage@alcatel-lucent.com" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:58:50 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Sip] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2910)
Thread-Index: AcxRJBq8SMCGUJuXTKu9oEoVxK0I0AACJafA
Message-ID: <DC49588FF3643F43B3A2A8F6F0A625F0284638642A@mailbox1.acmepacket.com>
References: <20110802145359.C9DEE98C50D@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110802145359.C9DEE98C50D@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAUA=
Cc: "sip@ietf.org" <sip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 15:59:47 -0000

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