RFC 4483, "A Mechanism for Content Indirection in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Messages", May 2006Source of RFC: sip (rai)
Errata ID: 79
Status: Held for Document Update
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-06-20
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
(1) Inconsistent Ref. to URI Specification The text of RFC 4483 repeatedly refers to "RFC2396 " . This is misleading. Every occurrence of "RFC 2396" should be replaced by "RFC 3986". Note: Section 10.1. Normative References, holds the proper reference to STD 66, RFC 3986 in its item  ! (2) Outdated Ref. to HTTP 1.1 Specification Item  of Section 10.1 Normative References, points to the outdated original specification for HTTP 1.1, RFC 2016, which has been obsoleted by RFC 2616, 7 years ago. Since the HTTP ETAG mechanism (referred to in the text of RFC 4483) has been clarified substantially in RFC 2616, the reference to "RFC2068 " in Section 4, near the bottom of page 5 of RFC 4483, should bhave been "RFC2616 ", and the item  of Section 10.1, on page 15 of RFC 4483, should be replaced by a citation of RFC 2616 according to `rfc-ref.txt`. (3) (Mis)Use of SIP Terminology Unfortunately, RFC 4483 substantially adds to the confusion of precisely defined SIP (and other) terminology. In particular, *all* occurrences of the term "Header[s]" in RFC 4483 should be corrected to say "Header Field[s]". RFC 4485, published just 2 weeks ahead of RFC 4483, explicitely poses the requirement for SIP extension documents to follow the established SIP terminology -- cf. Section 4.3 of RFC 4485 (page 10), which says: Careful attention must be paid to the actual usage of terminology. Many documents misuse the terms header, header field, and header field values, for example. Document authors SHOULD do a careful review of their documents for proper usage of these terms. See also RFC 4249, Section 3.1.1 (page 3) for a similar statement on the proper usage of these terms in the context of IMF and MIME, and related (extension) specifications.