Subject: [SIP] Inconsistencies and questions regarding latest 2543bis draft

From: Peter Kjellerstedt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:23:02 +0200

Hello,

the following are a number of inconsistencies and questions
that I have found while studying the latest 2543bis draft 
(July 13). I hope they can be fixed/answered.

1) Table 2 is not consistent with the text:

   In the text about URL parameters it is specified that
   transport, maddr and ttl MUST NOT be present in From and To
   headers and in the Request-URI, but still they are listed
   in table 2 as optitional for the Request-URI.

2) In 6.10 (Alert-Info):

   The syntax looks very odd with upside-down ! and ? around
   the URI... I suppose they should really be "<" and ">"
   (as indicated by the example).

3) In 6.14 (Call-Info):

   There should be quotation marks (") around the purpose
   parameter name in the syntax definition.

   Must the purpose parameter really be the first one as stated by
   the grammar, or can it be anywhere among the parameters (as is
   the case with just about every other parameter list specified
   in the draft)?

4) In 6.15 (Contact) and 11.1 (Behaviour of SIP User Agents):

   It is stated in 6.15 that a Contact header MUST be present
   in an INVITE. In 11.1 it is said that you MAY add a Contact
   to an INVITE...

5) In 6.16 (Content-Disposition):

   The extension-token rule is not defined anywhere. I suppose it
   should just be a token, but anyway...

6) In 6.35.4 (Record-Route Syntax) and 6.39 (Route):

   Should the syntax for Record-Route (similar for Route) not be

      record-route = "Record-Route" ":" 1# (name-addr [rr-extension])

   instead of

      record-route = "Record-Route" ":" 1# name-addr [rr-extension]

   or is the extension really meant for all the recorded routes
   appearing on the same line, and not each one individually?
   This is inconsistent with all other similar headers.

   Why is it [rr-extension] and not *(';' rr-extension)  ?
   Is there no possibility of wanting more than one parameter
   for Record-Route and Route?

7) In 6.35.4 (Record-Route Syntax) and 6.47.5 (Via Syntax):
   
   The syntax for rr-extension and via-extension could be redefined
   to use the generic-param rule to keep them consistent with all
   the other parameters that were changed in this way.

//Peter

------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kjellerstedt       E-Mail: [email-masked]
Axis Communications AB   Phone:  +46 46 272 18 69
Scheelevagen 34          Fax:    +46 46 13 61 30
SE-223 63 LUND           URL:    http://www.axis.com/

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:13:01 -0400

> (July 13). I hope they can be fixed/answered.

Thanks for the careful reading. Hopefully, Jonathan L. will soon run his
BNF checker over the current BNF to find any dangling definitions.

>    in table 2 as optitional for the Request-URI.

Table changed.

>    (as indicated by the example).

LaTeX problem fixed.

>    parameter name in the syntax definition.

Yes, and (unrelated) "tag=" should really be "tag" "=".

>    the case with just about every other parameter list specified

I went through the spec and changed all parameters to the standard

   Foo = "Foo" ":"  something *( ";" foo-param )
   foo-param = ....
             | generic-param

model.

>    in an INVITE. In 11.1 it is said that you MAY add a Contact

Changed to MUST.

>    should just be a token, but anyway...

Added.

>    This is inconsistent with all other similar headers.

Made similar to the other headers:

  Record-Route = "Record-Route" ":" 1# ( name-addr *( ";" rr-param ))
  rr-param     = generic-param

>    the other parameters that were changed in this way.

   Now:

     via-extension = generic-param

  The remainder seems to be already in line with the "Foo" example
above.

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

---

From: "Daniel Gardner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:15:33 -0400

Should the section on locating a server (1.4.2) be updated to reflect
point (1) below?

Dan Gardner

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 2:13 PM
To: Peter Kjellerstedt
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [SIP] Inconsistencies and questions regarding latest
2543bis draft

Table changed.

LaTeX problem fixed.

model.

Changed to MUST.

Added.

   Now:

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:24:28 -0400

> Should the section on locating a server (1.4.2) be updated to reflect

Actually, I think the table is right, and the text is wrong.
Parameters/maddr/port should be allowed in the request URI, but not in
the To/From. In that case, 1.4.2 need not be updated.

> >    in table 2 as optitional for the Request-URI.

-Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:07:57 -0400

> the To/From. In that case, 1.4.2 need not be updated.

Added a motivation. These parameters are needed only for outbound
proxies, as far as I can tell.