IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] #6: Editorial: incorrect 6.3.4 rule 4 explanatory text

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Sat, 28 August 2010 22:04 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 2C1FB3A6965 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.468
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, 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 XT1uacLAjQYB for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC29D3A68AE for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so4053571iwn.31 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:05:01 -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=4+nFxlcr5WDoggTyrM9fmE2e1gAL6wSKc7FaQx3bitY=; b=s66/2bZro0EXlnmV7l+5cy9JVYa9kuP6koIQZ9/j+Dax6+ZV2aiPvDl6Rayuk0DtuG vEyAGSyGsXD24McqTBHsq4+vavCjraUxL8FE33Try4etkYIaTUNCwl8EA917QsxqW/XP DpEaoQArtmkGSj9aTIaZhOTJbUVySTHyTHCSA=
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=wm85V/09RnO5jTWviaKYZjTl/Jynoc8pRUkEpjlcLvbs7sEtc5n6O67/x465m/j9c0 NXFHxIjBpfGQ2FSlFUFLmSz67EoWhNlBvcr1GnZ83XhJSmR6PQ2RL2gvGUo4IIfq7vo9 QVcEKKx55LV3mUXjIbAqtzcwsA6SieEu1SRC0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.149.80 with SMTP id s16mr3076475ibv.81.1283033101464; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.169.14 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <064.2794ed3170efd1bfd91e2bbde05e1c7b@tools.ietf.org>
References: <064.2794ed3170efd1bfd91e2bbde05e1c7b@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:05:01 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikPaPxyCdJN9=ibXmE5musT9K0AXi_hySnEdJ3U@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] #6: Editorial: incorrect 6.3.4 rule 4 explanatory text
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: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:04:31 -0000

Another good catch.  I had to read this several times to see the
problem you point out. I'll fix this.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM, sipcore issue tracker
<trac@tools.ietf.org> wrote:
> #6: Editorial: incorrect 6.3.4 rule 4 explanatory text
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  hkaplan@…               |       Owner:
>     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:  milestone1
> Component:  rfc4244bis              |     Version:  2.0
>  Severity:  In WG Last Call         |    Keywords:
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Section 6.3.4 rule 4 says:
>        4.  Retargeting based upon a Response: In the case of retargeting
>  due
>        to a specific response (e.g., 302), the index would be calculated
>        per rule 3.  That is, the lowest/last digit of the index is
>        incremented (i.e., a new branch is created), with the increment
>        of 1.  For example, if the index in the History-Info header of
>        the received request was 1.2, then the index in the History-Info
>        header field for the new hi-targeted- to-URI would be 1.3.
>
>  That last sentence is incorrect.  If the *received* request was 1.2, and
>  it was sent to Bob, it's now 1.2.1, and if Bob responds with a 302, the
>  new request is now 1.2.2.  If the *sent* request (which got redirected)
>  was 1.2, then 1.3 would be right.
>
>  Change the sentence to say "... of the sent request was 1.2, and it was
>  responded to with a 302, then the index in the History-Info header field
>  for the new hi-targeted-to-URI would be 1.3.".
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/6>
> 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