[sipcore] name-addr vs addr-spec requirements (was Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5318 (4651))

This cluster of errata (4650, 4651, 4652) are on the wrong edge of 
making a technical change from my perspective.

It's a good technical change to make, and it _should_ have been stated 
as such in the documents the errata are filed against, but it is still a 
technical change.

I would prefer the work to clarify the documents be done with a draft 
that goes through IETF LC rather than use errata.

That draft could solve the problem this cluster points to much more 
generally, updating 3261 to require that _anywhere_ name-addr/addr-spec 
are used as alternates, name-addr MUST be used if comma, question mark, 
or semicolon appear. The text could leave an "unless explicitly 
specified otherwise" out.
That draft could have a section capturing the places where we failed to 
say that so far, and update the relevant RFCs (the ones these errata 
point to) as well.

RjS

On 3/30/16 3:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> (copying sipcore)
>
> On 30 Mar 2016, at 11:12, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>
>> Hi Brett,
>>
>> I have the same comment as on the other document. I would talk about the
>> name-addr form instead. Let's agree on the text we want to use for the
>> three documents, since it is the same issue.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 29/03/2016 7:06 PM, Brett Tate wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My proposed resolution is similar to what occurred within RFC 3325 errata
>>> (3744 and 3894).
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 12:02 PM
>>>> To: Jani.Hautakorpi@ericsson.com; Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com;
>>>> iesg@ietf.org
>>>> Cc: brett@broadsoft.com; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>>>> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5318 (4651)
>>>>
>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5318, "The Session
>>>> Initiation Protocol (SIP) P-Refused-URI-List Private-Header (P-Header)".
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5318&eid=4651
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Type: Technical
>>>> Reported by: Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>
>>>>
>>>> Section: 5
>>>>
>>>> Original Text
>>>> -------------
>>>> The members P-Header parameter MUST contain a cid-url, which is defined
>>> in
>>>> RFC 2392 [2].
>>>>
>>>> Corrected Text
>>>> --------------
>>>> The members P-Header parameter MUST contain a cid-url, which is defined
>>> in
>>>> RFC 2392 [2].
>>>>
>>>> If the URI contains a comma, question mark or semicolon, the URI MUST be
>>>> enclosed in angle brackets (< and >).
>>>>
>>>> Notes
>>>> -----
>>>> Comma and semicolon can cause decode ambiguities when the header
>>> contains
>>>> addr-spec values instead of name-addr values.  For consistency with RFC
>>> 3261
>>>> section 20, the same bracket rule is indicated to resolve the ambiguity.
>>>>
>>>> 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 (IESG) can log in to change the
>>>> status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC5318 (draft-hautakorpi-sipping-uri-list-handling-refused-03)
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Title               : The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
>>> P-Refused-URI-
>>>> List Private-Header (P-Header)
>>>> Publication Date    : December 2008
>>>> Author(s)           : J. Hautakorpi, G. Camarillo
>>>> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
>>>> Source              : IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
>>>> Area                : N/A
>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore