errata logo graphic

Found 5 records.

Status: Verified (5)

RFC5806, "Diversion Indication in SIP", March 2010

Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT

Errata ID: 3081

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Marianne Mohali
Date Reported: 2012-01-05
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-04-10

Section 9.1 says:

ISUP and ISDN define the following diversion reasons:

It should say:

ISDN defines the following diversion reasons:

Notes:

The listed reasons (code and text) are not ISUP but ISDN (DSS.1)


Errata ID: 3082

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Marianne Mohali
Date Reported: 2012-01-05
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-04-10

Section 9.1 says:

Mapping of ISUP/ISDN reason codes to Diversion reason codes is
performed as follows:
ISUP/ISDN reason code Diversion reason code
0001                  "user-busy"
0010                  "no-answer"
1111                  "unconditional"
1010                  "deflection"
1001                  "unavailable"
0000                  all others

It should say:

Mapping between ISDN reason codes and Diversion reason codes is
performed as follows:
ISDN reason code      Diversion reason code
0001                  "user-busy"
0010                  "no-answer"
1111                  "unconditional"
1010                  "deflection"
1001                  "unavailable"
0000                  all others
all others            "unknown"

Notes:

The reason codes are not ISUP but ISDN (ISUP deleted).
Missing the "all others" line in the ISDN to Diversion header mapping.


Errata ID: 3083

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Marianne Mohali
Date Reported: 2012-01-05
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-04-10

Section 9.1 says:

9.1 Mapping ISUP/ISDN Diversion Reason Codes

It should say:

9.1 Mapping ISUP/ISDN Diversion Reason Codes

ISUP defines the following diversion reasons:
0001 = User busy
0010 = no reply
0011 = unconditional
0100 = deflection during alerting
0101 = deflection immediate response
0110 = mobile subscriber not reachable
0000 = Unknown

Mapping between ISUP reason codes and Diversion reason codes is
performed as follows:
ISUP reason code      Diversion reason code
0001                  "user-busy"
0010                  "no-answer"
0011                  "unconditional"
0100 or 0101          "deflection"
0110                  "unavailable"
0000                  all others
all others            "unknown"

Notes:

Section 9.1 mentions mapping with ISUP and ISDN but mapping with ISUP is missing. Indeed ISDN and ISUP reason parameter values are different.
This errata adds the ISUP mapping.


Errata ID: 3177

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Brett Tate
Date Reported: 2012-04-04
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-04-10

Section 4 says:

Diversion = "Diversion" ":" 1# (name-addr *( ";" diversion_params ))
diversion-params = diversion-reason | diversion-counter |
                   diversion-limit | diversion-privacy |
                   diversion-screen | diversion-extension

It should say:

Diversion = "Diversion" HCOLON diversion-params *(COMMA diversion-params)
diversion-params    = name-addr *(SEMI (diversion-reason /
                      diversion-counter / diversion-limit /
                      diversion-privacy / diversion-screen /
                      diversion-extension))

Notes:

The original text did not comply with the format defined by RFC 4485 and RFC 3261. It also did not indicate where to find the #rule (such as within RFC 2543). Thus the ABNF for Diversion should either be modified or RFC 2543 should be referenced to help interoperability. The proposed new ABNF was provided by RFC 6044; it also changes ";" to SEMI which addresses the related LWS ambiguity concerning if RFC 3261 or RFC 2543 LWS rules should be followed.


Errata ID: 3178

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Brett Tate
Date Reported: 2012-04-04
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-04-10

Section 6.5.1 says:

privacy="full"

It should say:

privacy=full

Notes:

The example incorrectly adds quotes to full. The quotes add confusion since full was explicitly defined to not use quotes. Similar quoting issues exist within other examples; see sections 6.5.2, 9.2.5, 9.2.6, 9.3.5, and 9.3.6.


Report New Errata