Subject: Re: [sipcore] RSeq and forking - Errata

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 16:35:52 -0500

On 19 Jun 2015, at 11:01, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> Hi,
>
>>>> Hi Roland,
>>>>
>>>> We could add a clarifying note.
>>>>
>>>> But, I don't think the note should talk about "use-cases". It 
>>>> should
>>>> simply say that, if forking occurs, RSeq values are processed per
>>>> early dialog, independently from the RSeq values on other early 
>>>> dialogs.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Note that the same is true for CSeq. It would be a very stupid 
>>> implementation that handled the CSeq per-dialog but not the RSeq.
>>
>> Note that the scope of RSeq values is a single INVITE transaction, 
>> not a dialog. (So, for a re-INVITE in the same dialog the RSeq value 
>> might turn out > to be lower than that for the INVITE that 
>> established the dialog.)
>
> Correct, that needs to be clear.
>
>> But that value space is owned by the UAS for the INVITE. So, from the 
>> perspective of the sender of the INVITE (receiver of provisional 
>> responses), >the value space must be managed independently for the 
>> combination of INVITE transaction AND dialog id. So the required 
>> logic is somewhat >different than what is required for CSeq.
>
> *Nodding like when I am not really sure I understood what you said, 
> but it did sound correct* :)
>

 From this discussion, am I correct in understanding that the errata is 
not quite correct? If so, do people prefer that I reject the existing 
eratta, and let someone submit a new one? Alternatively, given that the 
language appears to need some thought, or at least word-smithing, do 
people still think it reasonable to handle this as an errata?

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 05:46:00 +0000

Hi Ben,

Assuming we have to submit a new errata in order to do the word smiting, I guess rejecting the current one is the way forward. Nobody has objected to the correction as such.

However, I guess we should then on the list should agree on the actual text, before submitting a new errata.

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 03 July 2015 00:36
To: Christer Holmberg; Paul Kyzivat
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] RSeq and forking - Errata

On 19 Jun 2015, at 11:01, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>>>> should simply say that, if forking occurs, RSeq values are 
>>>> processed per early dialog, independently from the RSeq values on 
>>>> other early dialogs.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>

 From this discussion, am I correct in understanding that the errata is not quite correct? If so, do people prefer that I reject the existing eratta, and let someone submit a new one? Alternatively, given that the language appears to need some thought, or at least word-smithing, do people still think it reasonable to handle this as an errata?

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 11:48:29 -0400

WFM

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:19:34 -0500

On 3 Jul 2015, at 0:46, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> Assuming we have to submit a new errata in order to do the word 
> smiting, I guess rejecting the current one is the way forward. Nobody 
> has objected to the correction as such.

"word smiting" is a wonderful typo for this. I'm going to use that one 
:-)

Rejecting it is not absolutely necessary to edit the wording, but I 
think it may be the right thing to do here [see below]

> text, before submitting a new errata.

I agree. But after reading the discussion so far (especially Paul's 
comment), I'm not sure if this is a simple fix, or if it needs more 
thought. Therefore I'm going to reject the errata as it currently 
stands. I'd like to see the working group discuss the correct fix. If 
that turns out to be an errata, we can submit that one when it's agreed 
upon. If it turns out to be something else, we can cross that bridge 
when we come to it.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:08:54 -0400

On 7/13/15 6:19 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> "word smiting" is a wonderful typo for this. I'm going to use that one :-)
>

Do we want to start that discussion *now*? Or wait until after the meeting?

While sipcore isn't meeting, most of the sipcore regulars are probably 
concentrating on things that *will* be going on at the meeting. So I'm 
inclined to think it would be better to wait about a month before 
starting the discussion.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:12:03 -0500

On 13 Jul 2015, at 18:08, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>>> However, I guess we should then on the list should agree on the 
>>> actual
>>> text, before submitting a new errata.
>>

I will leave that to the chairs, but I don't think the world is going to 
end if it waits a few weeks.

Ben.

---

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:31:58 -0500

On 7/13/15 6:12 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> While sipcore isn't meeting, most of the sipcore regulars are 
>> probably concentrating on things that *will* be going on at the 
>> meeting. So I'm inclined to think it would be better to wait about a 
>> month before starting the discussion.
>
> I will leave that to the chairs, but I don't think the world is going 
> to end if it waits a few weeks.

It's OK with the chairs to hold off discussing this topic until after 
Prague.

Jean

>
> Ben.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore