[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Sip] RE: [Sip-implementors] Changes from bis-09 to RFC 3261
I trimmed those for our needs. I'll send the raw changes as sent to the sip mailing list in another following mail.
/Hisham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 8:52 AM
> To: sip@ietf.org; sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] Changes from bis-09 to RFC 3261
>
> * It was reported that the processing of timer D in the transaction
> layer was wrong. This is the timer that fires in the INVITE client
> transaction after it has ceased waiting for retransmits of the final
> response, in order to send an ACK. Bis-09 said to inform the TU of a
> timeout. However, this is not a failure condition, so that makes no
> sense. As such, Section 17.1.1.2, now reads:
>
> "If timer D fires while the client transaction is in the "Completed"
> state, the client transaction MUST move to the terminated state."
>
>
> * We clarified that, when moving to terminated state for client invite
> transactions, you need to delete the transaction immediately.
>
> * The rules in Section 17.2.3, for matching a request to a
> transaction when the branch ID had the cookie, were not quite
> right. In particular, they were wrong for
> CANCEL. The rules were updated:
>
> The
> request matches a transaction if:
>
> 1. the branch parameter in the request
> is equal to the one in the top Via header field of the
> request that
> created the transaction, and
>
> 2. the sent-by value in the top Via of the
> request is equal to the one in the request that created the
> transaction, and
>
> 3. the method of the request matches the one that created
> the transaction, except for ACK, where the method of the
> request that
> created the transaction is INVITE.
>
>
> * Section 18.1.1 led you to believe that if a request was too large
> for UDP, and you resent it, it had to be with TCP. ACtually, it can be
> with any congestion controlled transport (as defined by RFC 2914). We
> also clarified that if you change transports, the Via transport value
> needs to change. (its TCP in any case for our sip stack)
>
> * Rules for equality matching of From and To header fields were
> absent, even though there were references elsewhere in the text to the
> existence of such rules. They were added. See Sections 20.20 and
> 20.39.
>
>
> * The spec was inconsistent on the maximum value of the expires
> Contact parameter and the Expires header field. They were made
> consistent. The maximum value is (2**32)-1.
>
>
> * Section 20.37, on the Unsupported header field, failed to mention
> that a compact form was defined (the other headers with compact forms
> explicitly mention it in their section 20's). A mention was added.
>
> * The transaction matching algorithm requires rules for equality of
> Via header fields, but none was defined. A rule was added, see Section
> 20.42.
>
> * Section 21.4.15 indicated that inclusion of the unsupported
> extensions in a 420 response was a SHOULD. This is inconsistent with
> other text that said it was a MUST. Its a MUST. Section 21.4.15 was
> updated to reflect that.
>
>
> * The BNF had this construct where there was a list of choices, and
> one of the elements in the choice was optional:
>
>
> foo = bar / baz / [boo]
>
> turns out, this is actually not right, since it allows for an empty
> value for foo, which is not what is intended. Therefore, the text that
> described this convention, and all usages of it in the BNF, were
> removed.
>
> * The BNF for the user part of the SIP/SIPS URI allowed for an empty
> username and an @ sign; that is "sip:@foo.com" was valid according to
> the BNF. Its not. The BNF for the SIP-URI and SIPS-URI constructions
> was updated to correct this. Here is the change that was made (^
> characters indicate where the change is):
>
>
> OLD
> SIP-URI = "sip:" [ userinfo "@" ] hostport
> uri-parameters [ headers ]
> SIPS-URI = "sips:" [ userinfo "@" ] hostport
> uri-parameters [ headers ]
> userinfo = [ user / telephone-subscriber [ ":"
> password ]]
> user = *( unreserved / escaped / user-unreserved )
>
> NEW
> SIP-URI = "sip:" [ userinfo ] hostport
> ^^ delete "@"
> uri-parameters [ headers ]
> SIPS-URI = "sips:" [ userinfo ] hostport
> ^^ delete "@"
> uri-parameters [ headers ]
> userinfo = ( user / telephone-subscriber ) [ ":"
> password ] "@"
> ^ ^
> ^^^^
> user = 1*( unreserved / escaped / user-unreserved )
> ^
>
> * The Accept, Accept-Encoding, and Accept-Language and Allow
> BNF were all
> updated to allow for the header to have an empty value.
>
>
> * The BNF for rfc1123-date was wrong. It was missing a space after the
> comma. It was corrected thusly:
>
> OLD
> rfc1123-date = wkday "," date1 SP time SP "GMT"
>
> NEW
> rfc1123-date = wkday "," SP date1 SP time SP "GMT"
> ^^
>
> * The BNF for the Timestamp header was wrong. It was missing an
> explicit LWS between the the send time and the delay. It was
> added. The BNF was changed thusly:
>
>
> OLD
> Timestamp = "Timestamp" HCOLON 1*(DIGIT)
> [ "." *(DIGIT) ] [ delay ]
>
> NEW
> Timestamp = "Timestamp" HCOLON 1*(DIGIT)
> [ "." *(DIGIT) ] [ LWS delay ]
> ^^^
//lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip