Subject: [SIP] RFC 2543bis - SDP Compliance, ABNF

From: "Jean Jervis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:17:28 -0500

Here are some comments on the SIP RFC2543bis Draft.

1. Section 16.8 OPTIONS Request. The example SDP here does not have a c=
line. I believe it needs one, either at the session level or as part of each
media description in order to be compliant with the SDP spec.

2. Appendix B.7 Subject and SDP "s=" Line. This section indicates that the
s= line may be left empty for invitations to two-party sessions. This is not
compliant with the grammar in the SDP RFC (Appendix A) which requires at
least one character in the session name (which may be a blank). 

3. Appendix B.8 SDP "o=" Line. I had trouble with the wording "not strictly
necessary". Does this mean that the o= line is not always required or that
it is always required, but sometimes not very useful? Wouldn't it be best to
always be compliant with the SDP RFC, and just require that it be present?

4. Appendix C Summary of Augmented BNF. The *rule description seems to have
a problem with the < and > characters in <n>, etc. I see upside down ! and ?
(Spanish punctuation marks?). Don't know if this is just occurring at my end
or there is actually a problem with the document source.

My apologies if I have misunderstood any of these points.

Regards,
Jean Jervis
Nortel Networks