Re: Repost: [Sip] Buggy example in RFC 3261

[Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com>]

Well, a decision needs to be made one way or another. Since its already 
in 3261, I would propose that we declare the example as buggy, and go 
with the existing normative text, even though it works differently than 
for requests.

-Jonathan R.

hisham.khartabil@nokia.com wrote:
> This is an extract from a discussion I had with Robert Sparks:
>
>
> > > Yes, that was exactly what I asked. If its not so, what does an Expires
> > > header in a 200 OK for a REGISTER mean?
> >
> > As I note above, with the current text an Expire header field has no meaning
> > if it appears in a 200 response to a REGISTER request.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/sip/current/msg03602.html
>
> Regards,
> Hisham
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 7:01 AM
> > To: Peter Päppinghaus
> > Cc: sip@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Repost: [Sip] Buggy example in RFC 3261
> >
> >
> > Sorry for not responding. I did notice this. There is an 
> > error here, as 
> > you point out. What is NOT clear is whether the error is in 
> > the example, 
> > or in the normative text. For REGISTER requests, you can use 
> > either the 
> > Expires header field or the expires contact header field 
> > parameter. It 
> > seems odd that this same rule would not apply to REGISTER 
> > responses. My 
> > personal recollection was that either the Expires header field or the 
> > expires contact param was OK for either request or response. This 
> > doesn't match the normative text though.
> >
> > Does anyone use the Expires header field and NOT the expires contact 
> > param in REGISTER responses?
> >
> > -Jonathan R.
> >
> > Peter Päppinghaus wrote:
> >
> > > I have posted this earlier, but it seems to have gone
> > > unnoticed.
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I believe to have stumbled on a buggy example in RFC 3261.
> > >
> > > The 200 OK in the REGISTER example of RFC 3261, sec. 24.1 contains
> > > an Expires header, but no expires parameter in the Contact header.
> > >
> > > This violates RFC 3261, sec. 10.3, bullet 8:
> > > "Each Contact value MUST feature an "expires" parameter
> > >  indicating its expiration interval chosen by the registrar."
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Peter Paeppinghaus
> > --
> > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
> > Chief Scientist                             First Floor
> > dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
> > jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> > http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> > http://www.dynamicsoft.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
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