Re: [sipcore] Session Timers (RFC 4028) for REFER, PUBLISH, MESSAGE not defined

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 5/10/20 5:29 PM, Keith Drage wrote:
> I dont know whether we reached something we can formally describe as a 
> decision, but the overall opion was that it should be the text that 
> should normatively describe what the requirements were for the actions 
> in respect of inclusion in messages. If these tables were included, they 
> should be clearly described as informative.
> 
> Further, the normative text should be adequately worded to encompass the 
> understanding what happened when new messages were invented - so rather 
> than specifically listing messages, it should probably talk about 
> messages that create a dialog, etc.

Thanks Keith! I don't have a clear memory, but what you say is 
consistent with my vague recollection.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Keith
> 
> 
> On 10/05/2020 17:59, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 5/10/20 9:12 AM, Samir Srivastava wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>    The table mentioned in Section 4 in RFC 4028 does not contain 
>>> entries for REFER, PUBLISH and MESSAGE methods Below is the table 
>>> from Section 4
>>>
>>>
>>> +---------------+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>>     |     Header |where|proxy|ACK|BYE|CAN|INV|OPT|REG|PRA|UPD|SUB|NOT|
>>> +---------------+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>>     |Session-Expires|  R  | amr | - | - | - | o | - | - | - | o | - | 
>>> - |
>>>     |               |     |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |
>>>     |Session-Expires| 2xx | ar  | - | - | - | o | - | - | - | o | - | 
>>> - |
>>>     |               |     |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |
>>>     |Min-SE         |  R  | amr | - | - | - | o | - | - | - | o | - | 
>>> - |
>>>     |               |     |     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |
>>>     |Min-SE         | 422 |     | - | - | - | m | - | - | - | m | - | 
>>> - |
>>> +---------------+-----+-----+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>>>
>>>    They are not applicable for these, but it would have been better 
>>> if it is said categorically.
>>
>> IIRC, quite a long time ago it was decided that this table in 3261 was 
>> a bad idea, because it is essentially a summary of normative language 
>> in other sections of the document and is necessarily an approximation.
>>
>> After that, other work that updates and extends 3261 has been 
>> inconsistent it whether it updates the table or not.
>>
>> What we should be careful of is that the in progress update to session 
>> timers is clear, normatively and expositively,  one way or another.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Paul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sipcore mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore