[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: Christian Huitema <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of bis3]]
From: Anders Kristensen <akristensen@dynamicsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:14:20 -0400
CC: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, sip@ietf.org, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
References: <F66A04C29AD9034A8205949AD0C90104A3E408@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Sender: sip-admin@ietf.org

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

References:
- RE: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of bis3]]
  - From: Christian Huitema

Prev by Date: [Sip] Open Issue ID#100 - case sensitivity of URL parameter values
Next by Date: RE: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Sip] Few tiny issues with SDP section of bis3]]
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