[sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-03: comments concerning RFC 5057
Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com> Wed, 14 September 2011 12:15 UTC
Return-Path: <brett@broadsoft.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE6521F8B84 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m9hTkRUgyR-E for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout01.partnerhosted.com (smtpedge01.chinookhosting.com [173.225.22.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80BB121F8B7C for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CASUMHUB02.citservers.local (172.16.98.58) by FW01.citservers.local (172.16.98.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:19:15 -0700
Received: from EXMBXCLUS01.citservers.local ([fe80::a488:d1ec:a706:3a6d]) by CASUMHUB02.citservers.local ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:19:15 -0700
From: Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>
To: "adam@nostrum.com" <adam@nostrum.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:17:33 -0700
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-03: comments concerning RFC 5057
Thread-Index: Acxy2EfXxTYmgYXOR4SjNcgef/iikg==
Message-ID: <7FF1E5E16911C54BB2D57D4C4A2ED35A0C087ECC59@EXMBXCLUS01.citservers.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-03: comments concerning RFC 5057
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:15:41 -0000
Concerning the following draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-03 section 4.1.2.2 snippet indicating subscriber "MUST consider the subscription terminated", the draft should potentially better indicate that the MUST does not preempt the RFC 5057 notes (such as for 482 and 483) which indicate situations where the dialog would not be terminated. Section 4.1.2.2: "If a SUBSCRIBE request to refresh a subscription receives a 404, 405, 410, 416, 480-485, 489, 501, or 604 response, the subscriber MUST consider the subscription terminated. (See [RFC5057] for further details and notes about the effect of error codes on dialogs and usages within dialog, such as subscriptions)." Do the RFC 5057 notes for 482 edge condition still apply? It indicates an RFC 3263 advancing situation which might trigger a 482 response and allow the subscription to remain. If the RFC 5057 notes for 482 edge condition still apply, is it adequately indicated within the above snippet? Thanks, Brett