Return-Path: X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D58C1275C5; Wed, 10 May 2017 07:47:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.879 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NrLbKM_cWoaM; Wed, 10 May 2017 07:47:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCF0C127977; Wed, 10 May 2017 07:47:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v4AElXC0082319 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 May 2017 09:47:34 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63] From: Ben Campbell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2672FBE5-756F-44FB-A7A6-3DBE8133B7D5" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:47:34 -0500 References: <20170510074449.A08C8B817E6@rfc-editor.org> Cc: Mary Barnes , sipcore-chairs@ietf.org To: SIPCORE Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: [sipcore] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7044 (5014) X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Core Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 14:47:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2672FBE5-756F-44FB-A7A6-3DBE8133B7D5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Do people have thoughts on this? Thanks! ben. > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > From: RFC Errata System > Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7044 (5014) > Date: May 10, 2017 at 2:44:49 AM CDT > To: mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com, francois.audet@skype.net, = shida@ntt-at.com, ietf.hanserik@gmail.com, = christer.holmberg@ericsson.com, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, = aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, br@brianrosen.net, mahoney@nostrum.com > Cc: dinoop.p1@gmail.com, sipcore@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org >=20 > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7044, > "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Request = History Information". >=20 > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5014 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Dinoop Paloli >=20 > Section: 9.1 and 10.3 >=20 > Original Text > ------------- >=20 >=20 > Corrected Text > -------------- >=20 >=20 > Notes > ----- > Ambiguity exists regarding the handling of missing history info entry >=20 > Section 9.1 says, > If the Request-URI of the incoming request does not match the hi > -targeted-to-uri in the last hi-entry (i.e., the previous SIP entity > that sent the request did not include a History-Info header field), > the SIP entity MUST add an hi-entry to the end of the cache on > behalf of the previous SIP entity >=20 > According to that, for example, if request is received with, > Request URI : sip:peter@example.com > and History info : ;index=3D1 > = ;index=3D1.1 > = ;index=3D1.1.1 > = ;index=3D1.1.2 >=20 > Then processing entity has to add an history info in to cache on = behalf of previous entity as, > History info : ;index=3D1 > ;index=3D1.1 > ;index=3D1.1.1 > ;index=3D1.1.2 > ;index=3D1.1.2.1 > =20 > But in section 10.3 basic rules 6 states, > If the request clearly has a gap in the hi-entry > (i.e., the last hi-entry and Request-URI differ), the entity > adding an hi-entry MUST add a single index with a value of "0" > (i.e., the non negative integer zero) prior to adding the > appropriate index for the action to be taken. For example, if > the index of the last hi-entry in the request received was 1.1.2 > and there was a missing hi-entry and the request was being > forwarded to the next hop, the resulting index will be = 1.1.2.0.1. > =20 > But as per 9.1 stated above, once an entity receive a request = with missing history info > it has to add an entry to cache on behalf of previous = one. > So referring the previous example the added index would = be 1.1.2.1 > And by applying the rule in 10.3, the index for the new = request created by this entity would be 1.1.2.1.0.1 not 1.1.2.0.1 >=20 > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum 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 =20 > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > RFC7044 (draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-12) > -------------------------------------- > Title : An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol = (SIP) for Request History Information > Publication Date : February 2014 > Author(s) : M. Barnes, F. Audet, S. Schubert, J. van Elburg, = C. Holmberg > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Session Initiation Protocol Core RAI > Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG --Apple-Mail=_2672FBE5-756F-44FB-A7A6-3DBE8133B7D5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Do people have thoughts on this?

Thanks!

ben.

Begin forwarded = message:

From: = RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: = [Technical Errata = Reported] RFC7044 (5014)
Date: = May 10, 2017 at 2:44:49 AM = CDT
To: = mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com, francois.audet@skype.net, shida@ntt-at.com, ietf.hanserik@gmail.com, christer.holmberg@ericsson.com, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, br@brianrosen.net, mahoney@nostrum.com
Cc: = dinoop.p1@gmail.com, = sipcore@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org

The following errata report = has been submitted for RFC7044,
"An Extension to the = Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Request History Information".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5014

--------------------------------------
Type: = Technical
Reported by: Dinoop Paloli = <dinoop.p1@gmail.com>

Section: 9.1 = and 10.3

Original Text
-------------


Corrected Text
--------------


Notes
-----
Ambiguity exists regarding the handling of missing history = info entry

Section 9.1 says,
= If the Request-URI of the incoming request does not match the = hi
  -targeted-to-uri in the last hi-entry = (i.e., the previous SIP entity
  that sent the = request did not include a History-Info header field),
=   the SIP entity MUST add an hi-entry to the end of the cache = on
  behalf of the previous SIP entity

According to that, for example, = if request is received with,
Request URI : = sip:peter@example.com
and History info : =  <sip:bob@example.com>;index=3D1
= <sip:alice@example>;index=3D1.1
= <sip:jain@example>;index=3D1.1.1
= <sip:dave@example>;index=3D1.1.2

= Then processing entity has to add an history info in to cache on = behalf of previous entity as,
History info : = <sip:bob@example.com>;index=3D1
=             &n= bsp; <sip:alice@example>;index=3D1.1
=   <sip:jain@example>;index=3D1.1.1
=   <sip:dave@example>;index=3D1.1.2
=   <sip:peter@example.com>;index=3D1.1.2.1
= = =   
But in section 10.3 basic rules 6 = states,
If the request clearly has a gap = in the hi-entry
=       (i.e., the last hi-entry and = Request-URI differ), the entity
=       adding an hi-entry MUST add a single = index with a value of "0"
=       (i.e., the non negative integer = zero) prior to adding the
=       appropriate index for the action to = be taken. For example, if
=       the index of the last hi-entry in = the request received was 1.1.2
=       and there was a missing hi-entry and = the request was being
=       forwarded to the next hop, the = resulting index will be 1.1.2.0.1.
=   
  But as per 9.1 = stated above, once an entity receive a request with missing history = info
it has to add an entry to cache = on behalf of previous one.
So referring the previous example = the added index would be 1.1.2.1
And by = applying the rule in 10.3, the index for the new request created by this = entity would be 1.1.2.1.0.1 not 1.1.2.0.1

Instructions:
-------------
This = erratum 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  
can log in to change the status and edit the = report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC7044 = (draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-12)
--------------------------------------
Title =             &n= bsp; : An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for = Request History Information
Publication Date =    : February 2014
Author(s) =           : M. Barnes, = F. Audet, S. Schubert, J. van Elburg, C. Holmberg
Category =            : = PROPOSED STANDARD
Source =             &n= bsp;: Session Initiation Protocol Core RAI
Area =             &n= bsp;  : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream =             &n= bsp;: IETF
Verifying Party     : = IESG

= --Apple-Mail=_2672FBE5-756F-44FB-A7A6-3DBE8133B7D5--