IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] #34: Semantics of History-Info values need to be documented explicitly

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Tue, 31 August 2010 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD093A6A99 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rGIn+Q1LZTnO for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C862D3A6A96 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywk9 with SMTP id 9so3287001ywk.31 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=w2ebra5mT2m3pdrDg8VKnEn9SH6DKvgpH8qHczr6Y0c=; b=tu0bJ+HBqCWCoKJ1YiX+i5Vf5xu2L5DWfrqzdl+bafO9Cf0nh0KXSLwXJRZWOAW3JH 3j3BkoZ6TUzyAz4DCLw/OOcBdYGZWMap2r8VhCtkBCICCMzwTuNlB1XT/ieqgvLg4Jsq 4Fm7HqDvllKT2yc7BfZESx7VXai8rc9vwQzc8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QyFntsNpqrToMfKdz+ORm/I04Md9sF9tavHS3dFtlPvyU+f0GFc9ZcmmLyUeDqBpBs P8+OavC3JfdDc4iTLKxEQO/jGsMKZG75u3gVDgCXQEbCPrcTU3FkBj0QB9UE1zIeJlMq O1tQc1zMzxeRT1vQDdGaI9dGf6fYpgg0lYLKA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.232.7 with SMTP id e7mr7009557anh.133.1283283971135; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.169.14 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <061.0a5978795ae778ef21b5c72dd4fd4248@tools.ietf.org>
References: <061.0a5978795ae778ef21b5c72dd4fd4248@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:46:11 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimd0g-meQVzEZX5a8KD2SiQsVh4Pc67HO-V6HnB@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: sipcore issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: worley@alum.mit.edu, sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] #34: Semantics of History-Info values need to be documented explicitly
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:45:41 -0000

You'll have to send text on this one - it's not clear to me at all
what you are talking about.

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:08 PM, sipcore issue tracker
<trac@tools.ietf.org> wrote:
> #34: Semantics of History-Info values need to be documented explicitly
> ---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  worley@…             |       Owner:
>     Type:  enhancement          |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  critical             |   Milestone:  milestone1
> Component:  rfc4244bis           |     Version:
>  Severity:  In WG Last Call      |    Keywords:
> ---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
>  The draft doesn't give a clear specification of History-Info *as a data
>  structure*, that is, if one were to look at a request containing an H-I
>  header, (1) How would one verify that it had been constructed correctly?
>  and (2) What are the meanings of the various fields (in particular, their
>  relationships)?  Many of the components of History-Info are described, but
>  their descriptions are not as exact as they need to be.
>
>  Presumably the details of the "procedures" set how History-Info actually
>  works -- but that is the same problem as having a data structure in a
>  program that is only "documented" by the code that modifies it.  In
>  particular, if there was specification of H-I as a data structure, that
>  specification could be compared against the procedures to verify that both
>  the data structure specification and the procedures are correct.  Or more
>  importantly, the reader could compare their interpretations of the two to
>  verify that their understanding of both is correct.
>
>  (I am willing to help write this.)
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/34>
> sipcore <http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email