Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398 (2580)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 18 January 2011 14:12 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56773A6EF9 for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 06:12:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, 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 8ImEe+Ien2fd for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 06:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (shaman.nostrum.com [72.232.179.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8BB3A6FF5 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 06:12:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hydra-3.local (99-152-144-32.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.144.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0IEEIY6078574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:14:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4D35A03A.1010601@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:14:18 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
References: <20101019183146.D4C6BE066E@rfc-editor.org> <4D35548B.3020903@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D35548B.3020903@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 99.152.144.32 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "jon.peterson@neustar.biz" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "lyOng@ciena.com" <lyOng@ciena.com>, "sjames_1958@yahoo.com" <sjames_1958@yahoo.com>, "mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com" <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>, "sipping@ietf.org" <sipping@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398 (2580)
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:12:03 -0000
Yes, it seems correct. I would tag it as accurate, and set the action to "hold for document update". /a On 1/18/11 02:51, Jan 18, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > Stephen seems to be correct here. The gateway should not send the CANCEL > because it has not received any provisional response. I suggest we > accept the erratum. Comments? > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > On 19/10/2010 8:31 PM, RFC Errata System wrote: >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3398, >> "Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) User Part (ISUP) to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Mapping". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3398&eid=2580 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Stephen James<sjames_1958@yahoo.com> >> >> Section: 8.1.3 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> Item 6. >> >> The gateway also sends a CANCEL message to the SIP node to >> >> terminate any initiation attempts. >> >> >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> Drop this statement. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> No CANCEL is sent on INVITE transaction timeout. This is per 3261 "If no provisional response has been received, the CANCEL request MUST NOT be sent; rather, the client MUST wait for the arrival of a provisional response before sending the request." >> >> 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. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC3398 (draft-ietf-sipping-isup-06) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) User Part (ISUP) to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Mapping >> Publication Date : December 2002 >> Author(s) : G. Camarillo, A. B. Roach, J. Peterson, L. Ong >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Session Initiation Proposal Investigation >> Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >>
- [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398 (25… RFC Errata System
- Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398… Adam Roach
- Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398… Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398… Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Sipping] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3398… Robert Sparks