[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Sip] draft-ietf-sip-199-02: comments and questions
Greetings,
Here a few comments and questions concerning draft-ietf-sip-199-02.
Section 4 paragraph 4: Concerning "the client SHALL discard the 199
responses", is "SHALL" too strong since 100rel may be used? The
strength of "SHALL" is likely only an issue if 18x did not contain
100rel and 199 did.
Section 4 last paragraph: The use of "will act" should likely be changed
to reflect an RFC 2119 defined word.
Section 6 paragraph 2 first sentence: The use of "proxy MUST generate"
should likely be downgraded to SHOULD or MAY too clearly allow the proxy
to avoid sending 199 when forwarding to server expected to answer
quickly (such a voice mail server).
Section 6 paragraph 2 last sentence: Since using another's To tag when
sending the 199, the draft should mention something concerning headers
Contact and Record-Route. If proxy chooses not to add them, a missing
Contact and Record-Route will not be an issue for UAC; however another
proxy (not supporting this draft) may be surprised to see their
Record-Route entry missing. Additionally since this draft defines a 1xx
with To tag which does not create a dialog (unless section 4 paragraph 4
modified), does this draft update RFC 3261?
Section 7: Concerning "MUST reply to such requests with a 481", the text
should likely defer behavior to RFC 3261 concerning receiving requests
with To tag associated terminated/unknown dialog.
Sections 9 and 10: Concerning the "MUST NOT"s related to SDP, should
they be downgraded to a "SHOULD NOT" to still allow offer/answer
compliance if desired?
________________________From sip-bounces at ietf.org Mon Nov 17 07:10:24 2008
Return-Path: <sip-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sip-web-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-web-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555CA3A68AC;
Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:10:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: sip at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDF13A68AC
for <sip at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:10:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 1PkNF+57aCvx for <sip at core3.amsl.com>;
Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:10:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out001.iad.hostedmail.net (out001.iad.hostedmail.net
[209.225.56.23])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE613A67B5
for <sip at ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ATL1VEXC020.usdom003.tco.tc ([10.158.7.31]) by
out001.iad.hostedmail.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:20 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:33 -0500
Message-ID: <BBE61D1553D8A34F812FF87377B2935F05B95883 at ATL1VEXC020.usdom003.tco.tc>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-sip-199-02: comments and questions
Thread-Index: AclIxqM53uC4Q0SnSR+5FHxX3cAJzA==
From: "Brett Tate" <brett at broadsoft.com>
To: "Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg at ericsson.com>,
<sip at ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2008 15:10:20.0260 (UTC)
FILETIME=[9B46C240:01C948C6]
Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-199-02: comments and questions
X-BeenThere: sip at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>,
<mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>,
<mailto:sip-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces at ietf.org
Greetings,
Here a few comments and questions concerning draft-ietf-sip-199-02.
Section 4 paragraph 4: Concerning "the client SHALL discard the 199
responses", is "SHALL" too strong since 100rel may be used? The
strength of "SHALL" is likely only an issue if 18x did not contain
100rel and 199 did.
Section 4 last paragraph: The use of "will act" should likely be changed
to reflect an RFC 2119 defined word.
Section 6 paragraph 2 first sentence: The use of "proxy MUST generate"
should likely be downgraded to SHOULD or MAY too clearly allow the proxy
to avoid sending 199 when forwarding to server expected to answer
quickly (such a voice mail server).
Section 6 paragraph 2 last sentence: Since using another's To tag when
sending the 199, the draft should mention something concerning headers
Contact and Record-Route. If proxy chooses not to add them, a missing
Contact and Record-Route will not be an issue for UAC; however another
proxy (not supporting this draft) may be surprised to see their
Record-Route entry missing. Additionally since this draft defines a 1xx
with To tag which does not create a dialog (unless section 4 paragraph 4
modified), does this draft update RFC 3261?
Section 7: Concerning "MUST reply to such requests with a 481", the text
should likely defer behavior to RFC 3261 concerning receiving requests
with To tag associated terminated/unknown dialog.
Sections 9 and 10: Concerning the "MUST NOT"s related to SDP, should
they be downgraded to a "SHOULD NOT" to still allow offer/answer
compliance if desired?
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip