[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of bis3]]

To: "Anders Kristensen" <akristensen@dynamicsoft.com>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of bis3]]
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:17:01 -0700
Cc: "Flemming Andreasen" <fandreas@cisco.com>, <sip@ietf.org>, "Jonathan Rosenberg" <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org
Thread-Index: AcD05IS3k/yLf2LrTrCBjD2ImiH5GgAAGprA
Thread-Topic: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of bis3]]

Yes. In fact, we could make a session explaining that SDP was originally
defined for an entirely different purpose, that it is currently being
revised, and that a bunch of fields defined in SDP shall be considered
optional when used with SIP. I bet that this includes essentially all
the fields that are not directly related to specifying addresses, ports
and coding parameters, plus the version field that we use in
"re-invite."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anders Kristensen [mailto:akristensen@dynamicsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:14 AM
> To: Christian Huitema
> Cc: Flemming Andreasen; sip@ietf.org; Jonathan Rosenberg
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of
bis3]]
> 
> As long as we're sanitizing SDP we might as well make t= optional
also,
> as this doesn't always have a meaning (as phone calls are usually
> synchronous). Also, s= line is now usually given some dummy value and
> should be made optional.
> 
> Anders
> 
> 
> Christian Huitema wrote:
> >
> > Yes. In fact, I would be stronger. I would place a sentence saying
> > explicitly that and SDP text that does not include an "e=" or "p="
line
> > MUST NOT be rejected by SIP implementations.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Flemming Andreasen [mailto:fandreas@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:12 AM
> > > To: 'sip@ietf.org'; Jonathan Rosenberg
> > > Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of
bis3]]
> > >
> > > Based on this, can we agree, that the sentence "Either an e line
or p
> > line
> > > MUST be
> > > present." in Section B.2 should be removed, and hence there's no
need
> > to
> > > mention
> > > "e" and "p" in the next sentence ?
> > >
> > > -- Flemming
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Colin Perkins wrote:
> > >
> > > > It seems that any mandatory use of p= or e= is a hang over from
the
> > > > original use of SDP with SAP. I don't see that it necessarily
makes
> > > > sense with many current uses of SDP.
> > > >
> > > > We should clarify this in the revision of SDP, does someone want
to
> > > > suggest wording changes to the draft?
> > > > Colin
> > > >
> > > > --> Rajesh Kumar writes:
> > > > >rfc2327  annotates them with a "*" and further says: Optional
items
> > are
> > > > >marked with a "*".
> > > > >
> > > > >I take this to mean that these are optional. When using it in
the
> > > context
> > > > >of SIP, this convention should be followed. Further, I believe
this
> > > > >convention has been retained in the on-going SDP work, right?
> > > > >
> > > > >Rajesh
> > > > >
> > > > >At 04:25 PM 6/13/2001 -0400, Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> > > > >>Can somebody clarify if either an email address ("e=") or
phone
> > number
> > > > >>("p=") MUST
> > > > >>be present in SDP. The spec doesn't seem entirely clear on
this.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Thanks
> > > > >>
> > > > >>         Flemming
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Anders Kristensen wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > They're optional in the grammar, but the accompanying text
> > seems
> > > > >> > perfectly clear that one or the other must be present.
> > Sometimes
> > > it's
> > > > >> > more convenient to state requirements in english than BNF -
> > doesn't
> > > mean
> > > > >> > it's not part of the spec. I'm pretty sure that the quoted
> > sentence
> > > is
> > > > >> > the only reason it's required for SIP.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Anders
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Mohsen Soroush-nejad wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Section 6 of RFC 2327 lists all the SDP fields. The
optional
> > > > >> > > fields are identified by "*". "e" & "p" are identified as
> > > optional....
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Mohsen
> > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > > From: Flemming Andreasen [mailto:fandreas@cisco.com]
> > > > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:17 PM
> > > > >> > > To: Anders Kristensen
> > > > >> > > Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; 'Cullen Jennings'; sip@ietf.org
> > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of
bis3
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > That's far from clear if you read it in the context it
was
> > > provided in.
> > > > >> > > Also, do
> > > > >> > > note that both of these fields are in fact listed as
optional
> > > earlier
> > > > >> in the
> > > > >> > > spec.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > -- Flemming
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Anders Kristensen wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > It's required by RFC 2327 (no idea why, though:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >    o Either an email field or a phone field must be
> > specified.
> > > > >> > > >      Additional email and phone fields are allowed.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > Anders
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Flemming Andreasen wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > > > > > > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
> > > > >> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:15 PM
> > > > >> > > > > > > To: sip@ietf.org
> > > > >> > > > > > > Subject: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section
of
> > bis3
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Examples in section B don't have an e or P line
in
> > the
> > > SDP
> > > > >> > > > > > > even though one
> > > > >> > > > > > > them must be present.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > OK, I fixed that.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Speaking of that: Why is there now a requirement in
the
> > SDP
> > > section
> > > > >> > > stating
> > > > >> > > > > that "Either an e line or p line MUST be present." ?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > -- Flemming
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > Flemming Andreasen
> > > > >> > > > > Cisco Systems
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > >> > > > > Sip mailing list
> > > > >> > > > > Sip@ietf.org
> > > > >> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > Flemming Andreasen
> > > > >> > > Cisco Systems
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > > >> > > Sip mailing list
> > > > >> > > Sip@ietf.org
> > > > >> > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > > > >>
> > > > >>--
> > > > >>Flemming Andreasen
> > > > >>Cisco Systems
> > > > >
> > > > >  Rajesh
> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >Rajesh Kumar
> > > > >Cisco Voice Technology Center
> > > > >Tel: 408-527-0811, Fax: 408-853-1101
> > > > >Epage: mailto:rkumar@epage.cisco.com
> > > > >------------------------------------------------ --------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Flemming Andreasen
> > > Cisco Systems
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sip mailing list
> > > Sip@ietf.org
> > > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip mailing list
> > Sip@ietf.org
> > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list
Sip@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip

Prev by Date: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of bis3]]
Next by Date: [Sip] Allow in provisional responses ?
Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of bis3]]
Next by thread: RE: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of bis3]]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread