[sipcore] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3665 (3295)
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Sun, 04 November 2012 17:28 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 F3B4D21F8755 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:28:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSCQsNiHsGZa for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C43921F8724 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-603d.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-603d.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.96.61]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qA4HShj8027543 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 11:28:43 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <5096A5CC.5020307@nostrum.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 12:28:44 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
References: <20120726164109.2A538621A1@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120726164109.2A538621A1@rfc-editor.org>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120726164109.2A538621A1@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050102040907050107020604"
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 130.129.96.61 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [sipcore] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3665 (3295)
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 17:28:46 -0000
I am planning to approve this errata. Does anyone think that's the wrong thing to do? RjS -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3665 (3295) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT) From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> To: alan.johnston@mci.com, sdonovan@dynamicsoft.com, rsparks@dynamicsoft.com, ccunningham@dynamicsoft.com, kevin.summers@sonusnet.com, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, rjsparks@nostrum.com, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com CC: dwaiting@gmail.com, sipping@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3665, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Basic Call Flow Examples". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3665&eid=3295 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: David Waiting <dwaiting@gmail.com> Section: 3.8. Original Text ------------- F18 ACK Proxy 1 -> Proxy 2 ACK sip:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ss2.biloxi.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK721e4.1 Max-Forwards: 70 From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=314159 Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@atlanta.example.com CSeq: 1 ACK Content-Length: 0 Corrected Text -------------- F18 ACK Proxy 1 -> Proxy 2 ACK sip:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ss1.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1 Max-Forwards: 70 From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=314159 Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@atlanta.example.com CSeq: 1 ACK Content-Length: 0 Notes ----- Proxy 1 includes an incorrect Via header in the ACK. Instructions: ------------- This errata 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. -------------------------------------- RFC3665 (draft-ietf-sipping-basic-call-flows-02) -------------------------------------- Title : Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Basic Call Flow Examples Publication Date : December 2003 Author(s) : A. Johnston, S. Donovan, R. Sparks, C. Cunningham, K. Summers Category : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE Source : Session Initiation Proposal Investigation Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [sipcore] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC366… Robert Sparks