IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02.txt

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 01 June 2017 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
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 40291129439 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 12:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ReQVry-TtCaN for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 12:06:45 -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 CC0371286B1 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 12:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.26.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v51J6jko083179 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:06:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.26.91] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: sipcore@ietf.org
References: <149634388413.22120.14902268644274683856@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <879eb8ff-06c7-8aa3-b623-8a20fb724dcd@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 14:06:45 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <149634388413.22120.14902268644274683856@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/PsxJXTsA80AgD4TdAI1c8kkjKfo>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02.txt
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 19:06:47 -0000

This just adds the 2119 terminology block (as updated by the recently 
published 8174).

RjS


On 6/1/17 2:04 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Session Initiation Protocol Core of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP messages
>          Author          : Robert Sparks
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02.txt
> 	Pages           : 6
> 	Date            : 2017-06-01
>
> Abstract:
>     RFC3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains
>     the "name-addr / addr-spec" alternative to use name-addr when certain
>     characters appear.  Unfortunately it expressed the constraints with
>     prose copied into each header field definition, and at least one
>     header field was missed.  Further, the constraint has not been copied
>     into documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the
>     alternative.
>
>     This document updates RFC3261 to state the constraint generically,
>     and clarifies that the constraint applies to all SIP header fields
>     where there is a choice between using name-addr or addr-spec.  It
>     also updates the RFCs that define extension SIP header fields using
>     the alternative to clarify that the constraint applies (RFCs 3325,
>     3515, 3892, 4508, 5002, 5318, 5360, and 5502).
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email