Subject: [SIP] rfc2543bis: table 4 comments

From: "Brett Tate" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:02:22 -0400

The following are comments for section 6 table 4 of rfc2543bis.

Row "Contact R" column "INV" should be "m".

Row "Contact 2xx" column "INV" should be "m".

Row "Content-Language" should be all "o" instead of "m".

Row "Content-Length" should be all "o" if the last two 
paragraphs in section 6.19 are correct.

Please reply if these comments are not correct.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:08:14 -0400

> Brett Tate wrote:

Fixed - thanks.

> paragraphs in section 6.19 are correct.

It says "SHOULD" for Content-Length, so this is probably closer to 'm'
than 'o'.

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

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

---

From: "Alex Hardisty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:22:34 +0100

> It says "SHOULD" for Content-Length, so this is probably closer to 'm'

My interpretation of the text "as written" is that it is (according to table
4) mandatory to include the Content-Length in all Methods. The last two
paragraphs of 6.17 specify how the application ought to use this field
(however, according to the RFC2119 definition of "should" there may be valid
reasons why the application could use the field in a different way).
However, there is no indication that the field can be omitted.

If my interpretation is correct then:

1) This seems to be a significant change from the original RFC where
inclusion of the field was indicated as optional in table 4. How would this
affect backwards compatibility?

2) Perhaps it would be useful to add the sentence "It must be included in
every request" after the first sentence of 6.17.

3) There appears to be an inconsistency between the mandatory requirement to
include the field and the sentence of 6.17 referring to the case when it is
absent in a received request. If a mandatory field is absent, oughtn't it to
be treated as a protocol error?

I'm ready to be corrected in my interpretation!

--
Alex Hardisty
PQM Consultants

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:38:42 -0400

I actually think SHOULD is 'o' as opposed to 'm'. As Alex points out,
for backwards compatibility you will need to handle the case of not
getting a Content-Length.

-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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:38:40 -0400

Created an m* category: SHOULD sent, but receivers need to be prepared
to receive a request without it. Does that work?

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 21:58:37 -0400

> to receive a request without it. Does that work?

Sure; receivers needing to be prepared to receive a request without it
is a natural consqeuence of SHOULD send.

-Jonathan R.