RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 6044, "Mapping and Interworking of Diversion Information between Diversion and History-Info Headers in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", October 2010

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7544

Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT

Errata ID: 2603
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Hadriel Kaplan
Date Reported: 2010-11-04
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-01-04

Section 7.1 says:

   INVITE last_diverting_target
   Diversion:
   diverting_user3_address;reason=unconditional;counter=1;privacy=off,
   diverting_user2_address;reason=user-busy;counter=1;privacy=full,
   diverting_user1_address;reason=no-answer;counter=1;privacy=off

It should say:

   INVITE last_diverting_target
   Diversion:
   <sip:diverting_user3_address>;reason=unconditional;counter=1;privacy=off,
   <sip:diverting_user2_address>;reason=user-busy;counter=1;privacy=full,
   <sip:diverting_user1_address>;reason=no-answer;counter=1;privacy=off

Notes:

The examples in section 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 and also in 3.2 show the Diversion header field using an "address" that is not a SIP (or Tel) URI, and without the "<" ">" delimeters. That is not correct. It is confusing, because the History-Info examples show it correctly, and thus imply the two address formats are not the same and need to be interworked, whereas in fact they are both name-addr fields, and thus both need to have the "<" and ">", etc.

Report New Errata