Subject: [SIP] Further queries on SIP Draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:45:01 +0530

Hi, had some further queries on the SIP rfc2543bis Draft

Maybe some of these were reported before - if so pls ignore.

*)
The link on the SIP Site mentions the draft date as Jul 17th, downloading
it shows a date
of Jul 13th on the draft (PDF)

*)
 Page 19, in description of telephone-subscriber uses %x HEX HEX notation
instead of  % HEX HEX (I guess this would
have been corrected in Jul 17 version ?)

*)
Table 4, page 35 puts Content-Language header as "m" for all messages. I
dont think this is true.
The HTTP draft (which is referred to by the SIP draft) also marks it as
optional.

*)
Draft says Contact header is mandatory for INVITE. Table shows 'o'

*)
Page 13, point 7, line 2 : s/preent/present

*)
Page 39, Alert-Info grammar still has strange characters
(I think someone reported this on Call-Info  header too some time ago)

*)
Page 14 & Page 27:

Page 14 says:
"A successful SIP invitation consists of two requests, INVITE followed by
ACK.TheINVITE (Section 4.2.1)
request asks the callee to join a particular conference or establish a
two-party conversation. After the callee
has agreed to participate in the call, the caller confirms that it has
received that response by sending an ACK
(Section 4.2.2) request. If the caller no longer wants to participate in
the call, it sends a BYE request instead
of an ACK."

while Page 27 says

"A BYE request from either called or calling party terminates any pending
INVITE at a UA, but the
INVITE request transaction MUST be completed with a final response and
ACK."

It seems while the former suggests that ACK can be replaced by BYE, the
latter mandates the ACK. Is this an
mis-inerpretation of the text on my part ?

*)
Finally, just out of interest (not any comment as such):
In page 36,  Table 5, Record-Route interest, 2xx is written instead of 200.
  Is anoyone out there using
any 2xx class response besides 200 OK ? ( I saw the others in the HTTP
draft like 201-206)

Regds
Arjun

--
Arjun Roychowdhury @ Hughes Software Systems

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:26:10 -0400

> of Jul 13th on the draft (PDF)

The most recent one in http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/sip/drafts/ is to
be -01, dated Jul. 26.

> have been corrected in Jul 17 version ?)

This is a common misunderstanding. %x40 is from the ABNF spec, %40 is
the URL escaping. The two serve different purposes. To reduce confusion,
I've used the escaping version now.

> The HTTP draft (which is referred to by the SIP draft) also marks it as

I don't know which row you're reading, but it's 'o' in the current
version.

> Draft says Contact header is mandatory for INVITE. Table shows 'o'

See above.

> Page 13, point 7, line 2 : s/preent/present

See above.

> (I think someone reported this on Call-Info  header too some time ago)

See above.

> mis-inerpretation of the text on my part ?

Inconsistency fixed (offending sentence deleted).

> any 2xx class response besides 200 OK ? ( I saw the others in the HTTP

While there may not be something other 200 right now, we'd like to keep
this possibility open.