RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 3261, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", June 2002

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 3265, RFC 3853, RFC 4320, RFC 4916, RFC 5393, RFC 5621, RFC 5626, RFC 5630, RFC 5922, RFC 5954, RFC 6026, RFC 6141, RFC 6665, RFC 6878, RFC 7462, RFC 7463, RFC 8217, RFC 8591, RFC 8760, RFC 8898, RFC 8996

Source of RFC: sip (rai)

Errata ID: 832
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Marco Ambu
Date Reported: 2006-01-11
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks

 

I would like to show you an ambiguity in RFC 3261.

The ABNF for SIP in RFC 3261 page 227 defines header Accept as 
"Accept = "Accept" HCOLON [accept-range *(COMMA accept-range)].

Expanding this form we have:

Accept = "Accept" HCOLON [( (...) *(SEMI m-parameter) *(SEMI 
accept-param) ) *(COMMA accept-range)]

For example we can have

Accept: 
application/sdp;m_extension_parameter=value1;accept_extension_param=value2;q=0.5
We know from RFC 3261 that q is an accept-param.
We don't know how to consider the first two unknown parameters: how to 
distinguish from m-parameter and accept-param?

While in other cases RFC 3261 shows the rules to solve ambiguities (for 
example how to consider the parameters in a Contact URI if the URI is 
not enclosed in angular brackets) I have not found any suggestion for 
this specific case in RFC 3261.

It should say:

[not submitted]

Notes:

from pending

Report New Errata



Advanced Search