Subject: [martini] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6140 (3144)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:39:13 -0800 (PST)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6140,
"Registration for Multiple Phone Numbers in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6140&eid=3144

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: David Hancock <[email-masked]>

Section: 5.2

Original Text
-------------
<none -- new text being added>

Corrected Text
--------------
<Insert following new paragraph between existing 2nd and 3rd paragraph>

The registrar MUST populate the Contact header field of the 200 (OK) response
to REGISTER only with the explicitly registered Contact URIs identified in the
REGISTER request (i.e., for bulk number registration, the Contact URIs
containing the “bnc” parameter). The Contact header field of the 200 (OK)
response MUST NOT contain the multiple contact addresses that are implicitly
created by the bulk number registration procedure. 

Notes
-----
The proposed text clarifies how the MUST statement in RFC 3261 section 10.3 item-8 applies in the case of bulk number registration.

RFC 3261 section 10.3 item-8 says ...
8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response.  The response MUST
   contain Contact header field values enumerating all current
   bindings.  <... text deleted...>

For bulk number registration, this means that the Contact header field in the 200 (OK) response to REGISTER contains the Contact URI with the "bnc" parameter, and not the multiple derived contact URIs that are bound to the multiple E.164 numbers associated with the registering PBX.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6140 (draft-ietf-martini-gin-13)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Registration for Multiple Phone Numbers in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Publication Date    : March 2011
Author(s)           : A.B. Roach
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Multiple AoR reachabiliTy InformatioN Indication
Area                : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:08:53 -0600

This issue has already caused substantial confusion. The behavior that 
David proposes was clearly the intention of the working group, based on 
the discussions that went into development of the document. I believe 
the proper classification (based on the criteria published at 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html) is "Approved."

/a

On 3/1/12 3:39 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> Reported by: David Hancock<[email-masked]>
>
> Section: 5.2
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>     bindings.<... text deleted...>
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:16:06 -0600

> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html) is "Approved."

Adam, I agree ...

Gonzalo, I'm looking at 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html, and it looks 
like the IESG would be evaluating this, since the MARTINI working group 
has closed.

Do the (former) chairs need to do anything, except possibly say, "we 
agree with Adam"?

It would be helpful for the SIPconnectIT discussions at SIP Forum to 
know whether this errata is approved (they're looking at SIPconnect 
interop test cases, and CableLabs has already identified this issue in 
interop testing).

Thanks,

Spencer

>> The proposed text clarifies how the MUST statement in RFC 3261 section
>> 10.3 item-8 applies in the case of bulk number registration.
>>
>> For bulk number registration, this means that the Contact header field
>> in the 200 (OK) response to REGISTER contains the Contact URI with the
>> "bnc" parameter, and not the multiple derived contact URIs that are
>> bound to the multiple E.164 numbers associated with the registering PBX.
>>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:48:14 +0200

Hi Spencer,

no, you do not have anything else (beyond saying you agree with Adam).
We will "verify" the erratum so that everybody can see it is correct.

Thanks,

Gonzalo