[sipcore] SIP and SIPCORE errata

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Hello working group!

In my effort to clean up the erratas for art documents, I have identified 17 of them for sip and sipcore (see below), and I believe this working group should take a look at them. By the way, the sip specification is updated by a number of RFCs, so it might be possible that some of these are already taken care of, but even so they shouldn’t be left “open” (in case they are already fixed by another doc, the right thing to do is mark them “Hold for doc update”). I also have tried to find previous discussion in the mailarchive, when archived.
As a reminder, this gives guidelines on how errata should be handled, and what I base my evaluation on: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/
Please, take a look and let me know if you agree. Thank you!
Francesca

---


This is the list of erratas: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rec_status=2&errata_type=2&wg_acronym=sip&presentation=table and https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rec_status=2&errata_type=2&wg_acronym=sipcore&presentation=table

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4275 --> my first thought is to reject, as this seems it is not an error but a decision of the working group, and changing the behaviour should be done in a consensus document, but please check.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4553 --> I think this should be "Hold for document update"; it seems as this is in line with the original intent of the document, but the change of SHOULD to MUST make me pause and reticent to just verify this. I believe this was also expressed in the mailing list (thread starting here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/bn-pRgDyGL2FP_M7eYpyT35zNp4/)

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5653 --> The way this is written makes me hard to evaluate, so I would "reject". I would suggest the submitter to either resubmit with a correct OLD/NEW text, or even better to get feedback from the mailing list before doing so.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6645 --> I believe this should be "verified" as editorial. Also, the same errata should be submitted for Section 23.4.3.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6793 --> I believe this should be rejected

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7529 --> Without diving too deep into the updates to RFC 2616 and HTTP/1.1, this seems as it should be verified, please check.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4605 --> Given the amount of changes in this errata, I believe this is going beyond what erratas are for. I am not sure this is fixing an error. These statements went through IETF and IESG review as part of the original document. Changing them so would be a material change to the contents of the document without first gaining consensus from the appropriate parties. The errata process cannot be used to make this kind of material change.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5184 --> This thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/QewAnXtrf-Y4zqUh2CML6FaQ6Yw/ seems to suggest that rejecting this is the right thing.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4652 --> Hold for document update, or reject. This brings up a valid point, but this sort of technical change goes beyond what errata can do. (note that the same errata 4651 was hold for document update, but I would lean more on reject)

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4650 --> Same as above: Hold for document update, or reject. This brings up a valid point, but this sort of technical change goes beyond what errata can do.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4744 --> Reject: This one too goes beyond what the errata is for.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4886 --> Verified with type editorial

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5014 --> after looking in the mailarchive, this: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/C3eDkbfibtiyug-M6aOuf9fTvtE/ convinced me this one should be rejected.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5442 --> I believe this should be rejected.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5937 --> This errata should be removed as the submitter wanted to withdraw it: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/6YU8Ax-Yaz6YtnALBTSj_Rkv_Ks/ so it can be rejected or even better deleted by the RFC editor.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7136 --> At first look I would say this should be "verified" and editorial, but please check.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6586 --> Verified, but technical or editorial, I am not sure (though maybe editorial, if this can be considered an example)