Re: [sipcore] AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-keep-08 - example encoding

Christer Holmberg <> Fri, 26 November 2010 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D983A6A59 for <>; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 01:12:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.471
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dyJiYnRORO+7 for <>; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 01:12:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17213A6A7D for <>; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 01:12:10 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b8cae0000016b1-88-4cef7a28c0b7
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F5.66.05809.82A7FEC4; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:13:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:13:12 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Robert Sparks <>, SIPCORE <>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:13:11 +0100
Thread-Topic: AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-keep-08 - example encoding
Thread-Index: AcuLTVOcJ65h0amkTRmAnyyGNzH3WwAifNKQAFyUWGA=
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [sipcore] AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-keep-08 - example encoding
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:12:13 -0000

Hi Robert,


>>* All of the examples showing Via header fields use a shorthand, 
>>pseudo-code style representation of the header field format. 
>>It would be good to explicitly note that in the document. It would be 
>>better to provide one example that was syntactically correct.
>[CHH] I assume you mean that, instead of "Via:UAC" and 
>"Via:P1" I would use something like "" 
>and ""?
>Personally I think it's more clear to use pseudo-style (as 
>the example is not supposed to be teach-yourself-SIP), but I 
>can change according to your suggestion.

[CHH] I took a look at this. Using syntactically correct header fields would make the example quite messy, due to the length of the header fields, so my suggestion would be to instead add the following paragraph to the general section of the examples:

	"NOTE: The examples do not show the actual syntactical encoding of the request lines, response lines
	and the Via header fields, but rather a pseudo code in order to identity the message type and to 
	which entity a Via header field is associated."