[siprec] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7866 (7987)

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Inline ...

On 6/12/24 9:02 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 3:20 PM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     I agree that there is a disagreement between 7865 and 7866 on this
>     point. It ought to be resolvable by checking which media type was
>     actually registered with IANA. Unfortunately neither document does
>     that.
>     (Neither is present in the IANA registry.) Quite an oversight!
> 
>     At this point I think the best we can do is take a survey of which is
>     more common in the wild, and then bless that one.
> 
> 
> This is a bit outside my area of expertise and predates my time on the 
> IESG, so I can't say for sure what the right answer is quickly.
> 
> Which of the two did the working group intend? 

I don't remember.

Since I was an author of RFC7865 I'm going to say *that* is what was 
intended. :-)

But since RFC7866 was issued concurrently I suppose that isn't a strong 
argument.

Of the other people involved, including authors and chairs, I think only 
Brian Rosen and Charles Eckel are still active. They are already copied 
on this thread.

Charles, Brian and anybody else who remembers anything of this: What do 
you recall?

> That's what the erratum 
> should cover.  Or if it's not clear what was intended, then I think the 
> right disposition is "Hold for Document Update" rather than "Verified".

The author of the erratum clearly has an interop problem due to this 
ambiguity. The longer this goes unresolved the worse the problem 
becomes. So it seems there is some urgency.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> As for getting it corrected in the registry, we can do a quick sponsored 
> document or possibly have SIPCORE do one.
> 
> -MSK