RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 5 records.

Status: Reported (3)

RFC 7044, "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Request History Information", February 2014

Source of RFC: sipcore (rai)

Errata ID: 5014
Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Dinoop Paloli
Date Reported: 2017-05-10

Section 9.1 and 10.3 says:


Notes:

Ambiguity exists regarding the handling of missing history info entry

Section 9.1 says,
If the Request-URI of the incoming request does not match the hi
-targeted-to-uri in the last hi-entry (i.e., the previous SIP entity
that sent the request did not include a History-Info header field),
the SIP entity MUST add an hi-entry to the end of the cache on
behalf of the previous SIP entity

According to that, for example, if request is received with,
Request URI : sip:peter@example.com
and History info : <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
<sip:alice@example>;index=1.1
<sip:jain@example>;index=1.1.1
<sip:dave@example>;index=1.1.2

Then processing entity has to add an history info in to cache on behalf of previous entity as,
History info : <sip:bob@example.com>;index=1
<sip:alice@example>;index=1.1
<sip:jain@example>;index=1.1.1
<sip:dave@example>;index=1.1.2
<sip:peter@example.com>;index=1.1.2.1

But in section 10.3 basic rules 6 states,
If the request clearly has a gap in the hi-entry
(i.e., the last hi-entry and Request-URI differ), the entity
adding an hi-entry MUST add a single index with a value of "0"
(i.e., the non negative integer zero) prior to adding the
appropriate index for the action to be taken. For example, if
the index of the last hi-entry in the request received was 1.1.2
and there was a missing hi-entry and the request was being
forwarded to the next hop, the resulting index will be 1.1.2.0.1.

But as per 9.1 stated above, once an entity receive a request with missing history info
it has to add an entry to cache on behalf of previous one.
So referring the previous example the added index would be 1.1.2.1
And by applying the rule in 10.3, the index for the new request created by this entity would be 1.1.2.1.0.1 not 1.1.2.0.1

Errata ID: 5442
Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Ted Zhou
Date Reported: 2018-07-27

Section 9.3,10.2 says:

9.3   
   When a SIP entity receives a non-100 response or a request times out,
   the SIP entity performs the following steps:

      If the response is not a 100 or 2xx response, the SIP entity adds
      one or more Reason header fields to the hi-targeted-to-uri in the
      (newly) cached hi-entry reflecting the SIP response code in the
      non-100 or non-2xx response, per the procedures of Section 10.2.

10.2
   A Reason header field is added when the hi-entry is added to the
   cache based upon the receipt of a SIP response that is neither a 100
   nor a 2xx response, as described in Section 9.3. 

It should say:

9.3   
   When a SIP entity receives a non-18x response or a request times out,
   the SIP entity performs the following steps:

      If the response is not a 18x or 2xx response, the SIP entity adds
      one or more Reason header fields to the hi-targeted-to-uri in the
      (newly) cached hi-entry reflecting the SIP response code in the
      non-18x or non-2xx response, per the procedures of Section 10.2.

10.2
   A Reason header field is added when the hi-entry is added to the
   cache based upon the receipt of a SIP response that is neither a 18x
   nor a 2xx response, as described in Section 9.3. 

Notes:

I see we have several places using "100" or "non-100". I think the correct one should be "18x" or "non-18x".
Or, we can use "1xx" or "non-1xx".

100 means "100 Tring", it's not accurate.

Errata ID: 4345
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial

Reported By: chao wang
Date Reported: 2015-04-22

Section 6.2 says:

6.2.  User Agent Server (UAS) Behavior

   When receiving a request, a UAS MUST follow the procedures defined in
   Section 9.2.

It should say:

6.2.  User Agent Server (UAS) Behavior

   When receiving a request, a UAS MUST follow the procedures defined in
   Section 9.1.

Notes:

In fact, the subject of 9.2 is "Sending a Request with History-Info", according to the original text, it wants to refer to how to handle a received request in UAS, the right reference shall be section 9.1 (9.1. Receiving a Request).

Status: Rejected (2)

RFC 7044, "An Extension to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Request History Information", February 2014

Source of RFC: sipcore (rai)

Errata ID: 4181
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Hans Erik van Elburg
Date Reported: 2014-11-14
Rejected by: Alissa Cooper
Date Rejected: 2015-11-01

Section 9.3 says:

9.3. Receiving a Response with History-Info or Request Timeouts

It should say:

9.3. Receiving a Response or Request times out

Notes:

The title of section 9.3 is misleading in the sense that it suggests that it only applies to responses that contain the History-Info header. This is not correct, it applies to all responses when the RFC7044 applies.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
This errata indicates an editorial preference rather than an error.

Errata ID: 5012
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Dinoop Paloli
Date Reported: 2017-05-10
Rejected by: Ben Campbell
Date Rejected: 2017-05-10

Section 10.1.2 says:

If there is not a Privacy header field in the message

It should say:

If there is no Privacy header field in the message

Notes:

"If there is not a Privacy header" is not a correct sentence. We have to use "If there is no Privacy header"
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Either usage is acceptable.

Report New Errata