RFC Errata
Found 7 records.
Status: Verified (7)
RFC 5806, "Diversion Indication in SIP", March 2010
Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT
Errata ID: 3081
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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.
Errata ID: 6448
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: WK Sze
Date Reported: 2021-03-02
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2021-03-15
Section 4 says:
The following is an extension of tables 4 and 5 in [RFC3261] for the Diversion header:
It should say:
The following is an extension of tables 2 and 3 in [RFC3261] for the Diversion header:
Notes:
RFC3261 table 2 & 3 are the "Summary of header fields" which is the correct referencing point of the new Diversion header, while table 4 & 5 are for Timers.
Errata ID: 6991
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Rémy ALEGRI
Date Reported: 2022-06-14
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2022-06-14
Section 9.3.6. says:
;privacy="off
It should say:
;privacy="off"
Notes:
Hello,
In example or the 9.3.6. Example of SIP to ISDN Translation, an end quote error is present.
Sincerely,