Re: [sipcore] RSeq and forking - Errata

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Some time ago, this issue was raised, and it seems like we agreed on a way forward.

My colleague created an errata, but as far as I know nothing has happened.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3262&eid=4288

I guess we should agree and close the errata?

Regards,

Christer




-----Original Message-----
From: sipcore [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: 11 February 2015 22:41
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] RSeq and forking

On 2/11/15 2:54 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Roland,
>
> We could add a clarifying note.
>
> But, I don't think the note should talk about "use-cases". It should 
> simply say that, if forking occurs, RSeq values are processed per 
> early dialog, independently from the RSeq values on other early dialogs.

+1

Note that the same is true for CSeq. It would be a very stupid implementation that handled the CSeq per-dialog but not the RSeq.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> *From:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 11 February 2015 11:20
> *To:* Christer Holmberg; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* AW: [sipcore] RSeq and forking
>
> Hi Christer,
>
> The change itself is OK for me.
>
> Since I like to have more explicit description I would like to have 
> more text (e.g. Note) pointing to the fact that other early dialogs 
> depending on the number of responses made reliable have other RSeq values.
>
> Proposal :
>
>   "As a result, if the UAC receives another reliable provisional
>
>                  response to the same request ,<new>on a given 
> dialog</new>and its RSeq value is not one higher
>
>                  than the value of the sequence number, that response 
> MUST NOT be
>
>                  acknowledged with a PRACK, and MUST NOT be processed 
> further by the
>
>                  UAC.  An implementation MAY discard the response, or 
> MAY cache the
>
>                  response in the hopes of receiving the missing 
> responses. <new>Note that for some use cases multiples early dialogs 
> (e.g. forking) with different RSeq exist.</new>"
>
> Best Regards
>
> Roland
>
> *Von:*sipcore [mailto:[e-mail]] *Im Auftrag von 
> *Christer Holmberg
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2015 08:53
> *An:* Andrew Allen; Brett Tate; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Betreff:* Re: [sipcore] RSeq and forking
>
> Hi,
>
> So, are people ok with my suggested text?
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> *From:*Andrew Allen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 11. helmikuuta 2015 9:44
> *To:* Brett Tate; Christer Holmberg; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [sipcore] RSeq and forking
>
> +1
>
> *From:*sipcore [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Brett 
> Tate
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2015 6:38 AM
> *To:* Christer Holmberg; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [sipcore] RSeq and forking
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree that some vendors have misinterpreted the sentence (and other 
> aspects of the RFC such as if only 200 and 481 are valid responses to 
> a PRACK).
>
> The errata would mainly just be useful to quickly end debate with 
> those who think devices are somehow supposed to magically coordinate 
> RSeq generation with other devices when forking has occurred.
>
> *From:*sipcore [mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *Christer Holmberg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2015 5:33 AM
> *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [sipcore] RSeq and forking
>
> Hi,
>
> There has been some confusion regarding RFC 3262 and forking, and I'd 
> like to ask whether people think an errata would be useful.
>
> The text in section 4 says:
>
> "As a result, if the UAC receives another reliable provisional
>
>                  response to the same request, and its RSeq value is 
> not one higher
>
>                  than the value of the sequence number, that response 
> MUST NOT be
>
>                  acknowledged with a PRACK, and MUST NOT be processed 
> further by the
>
>                  UAC.  An implementation MAY discard the response, or 
> MAY cache the
>
>                  response in the hopes of receiving the missing responses."
>
> Now, in case of forking, in my opinion the UAC may receive the same 
> (or even lower) RSeq value on different early dialogs. But, there seem 
> to be some confusion around it.
>
> So, I wonder whether an errata would be useful, modifying the text to 
> something like:
>
> "As a result, if the UAC receives another reliable provisional
>
>                  response to the same request,<new>on a given 
> dialog</new>,
>
> and its RSeq value is not one higher..."
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore