[Sipping] Re: inconsistency between RFC4235 (Dialog package) and gruu-reg-event-09 example

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Mon, 23 July 2007 01:48 UTC

Return-path: <sipping-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ICn26-000685-QV; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:48:22 -0400
Received: from sipping by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ICn24-00067z-MI for sipping-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:48:20 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ICn24-00067r-9H for sipping@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:48:20 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ICn23-0007I8-7h for sipping@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:48:19 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2007 18:42:48 -0700
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlwPACamo0arR7MV/2dsb2JhbACIX5x9
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,569,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="186603293:sNHT4887025803"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l6N1gmJP006544; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:42:48 -0700
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l6N1fY6e011883; Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:42:47 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:42:47 -0400
Received: from [10.86.242.240] ([10.86.242.240]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:42:46 -0400
Message-ID: <46A40795.4040803@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:42:45 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeroen van Bemmel <jbemmel@zonnet.nl>
References: <005e01c7cc9a$8022e970$0601a8c0@BEMBUSTER>
In-Reply-To: <005e01c7cc9a$8022e970$0601a8c0@BEMBUSTER>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2007 01:42:46.0659 (UTC) FILETIME=[C528BD30:01C7CCCA]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1716; t=1185154968; x=1186018968; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20inconsistency=20between=20RFC4235=20(Dialog=20package )=20and=20gruu-reg-event-09=0A=20example |Sender:=20; bh=+kYu1VDq8Fs5hMLuKQo4bvmi1rNCKsEPYbkk3kDzYIs=; b=Jy5VnYMzuWpIT58enNt0cAOuDtg3vpVLRClfCJmy8NLuRZ2vmq9AmJq67/1y71X9DuT8d+cl DtyP/tACgCZxWuWa8FVIRmS+XxxeH65b7kGpsE7YAVGjILj0Dvm+jGEU/wfnIacy/O7Byp7pFy KYfJ36hi8NbQeki07G9Na5v5E=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb
Cc: sipping <sipping@ietf.org>
Subject: [Sipping] Re: inconsistency between RFC4235 (Dialog package) and gruu-reg-event-09 example
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org

Jeroen,

The gruu-reg-event draft doesn't define the unknown-param element - that 
is defined in RFC3680. I had need to use that in an example, and did it 
the way I thought was consistent with 3680, even if it happens to be 
inconsistent with 4235 which defines a different element for the purpose.

I'm going to have to consult with Jonathan, as author of 3680, about 
this. It seems that you may be asking for gruu-reg-event to act as a 
clarification/revision of 3680 as well as an extension. That would be a 
significant change at this stage of the game.

There is also an issue that 4235 doesn't talk about. The "<" and ">" are 
there for a reason in callerprefs. They are needed for callerpref values 
that contain strings, but not for callerpref values that contain other 
sorts of values. Removing them loses the significance. We may need to 
hunt back to dig out the reasoning about this.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
> Paul,
>  
> Regarding '<' '>' around instance-id in XML:
>  
> In RFC4235 (Dialog event package) it is explicitly stated in 4.1.6.2:
> [...] Note that any quoting (including extra angle-bracket quoting used 
> to quote string values in [10]) or backslash escaping MUST be removed 
> before being placed in a pval attribute.
>  
> [10] refers to RFC3840 "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the 
> Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)"
>  
> RFC3680 (reg event package) does not discuss this. The examples in 
> gruu-reg-event all use '&gt;' '&lt;' XML encoding for the '<' 
> '>'  characters around the instance id in "unknown-param" elements. For 
> consistency with RFC4235, I think they should be omitted.
>  
> Regards,
> Jeroen


_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP