RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Reported (4)
RFC 7315, "Private Header (P-Header) Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for the 3GPP", July 2014
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7913, RFC 7976
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUPArea Assignment: art
Errata ID: 4474
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Christer Holmberg
Date Reported: 2015-09-14
Section 5.4 says:
extension-access-info = gen-value
It should say:
extension-access-info = generic-param
Notes:
Most of the pre-defined access-info values are following the generic-param syntax. New access-info values (extensions) should also be allowed to follow the generic-param syntax, in order to allow both for a name and value of the extension.
Errata ID: 4540
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dongo Yi
Date Reported: 2015-11-20
Section 5.1 says:
5.1. P-Associated-URI Header Syntax
The syntax of the P-Associated-URI header field is described as
follows:
P-Associated-URI = "P-Associated-URI" HCOLON
[p-aso-uri-spec]
*(COMMA p-aso-uri-spec)
p-aso-uri-spec = name-addr *(SEMI ai-param)
ai-param = generic-param
It should say:
5.1. P-Associated-URI Header Syntax
The syntax of the P-Associated-URI header field is described as
follows:
P-Associated-URI = "P-Associated-URI" HCOLON
(p-aso-uri-spec)
*(COMMA p-aso-uri-spec)
p-aso-uri-spec = name-addr *(SEMI ai-param)
ai-param = generic-param
Notes:
P-Associated-URI cannot include an empty header value (which was able to be included according to RFC 3455)
- Background.
The policy of P-Associated-URI has been updated from RFC 3455.
RFC 3455 : 4.1.2.2 Procedures at the registrar
...
In case the address-of-record under registration does not have any
other SIP or SIPS URIs associated, the registrar MUST include an
empty P-Associated-URI header value.
RFC 7315 : 4.1.2.2 Procedures at the Registrar
...
If the address-of-record under registration does not have any
associated URIs, the P-Associated-URI header field SHALL NOT be
included.
...
Moreover, we can say RFC 3455 has same errata based on this analysis.
Errata ID: 4447
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Roland Jesske
Date Reported: 2015-08-17
Section 4.6.3.1. says:
4.6.3.1. Procedures at the Proxy Procedures described within 4.5.2.2 apply. A transit-ioi MAY be added or modified by a proxy. A deletion of the transit-ioi or a entry within the tranist-ioi could appear depending on the network policy and trust rules. This is also valid by replacing the transit- ioi with a void value.
It should say:
4.6.3.1. Procedures at the Proxy Procedures described within Section 4.6.2.2 apply. A transit-ioi MAY be added or modified by a proxy. A deletion of the transit-ioi or a entry within the tranist-ioi could appear depending on the network policy and trust rules. This is also valid by replacing the transit-ioi with a void value.
Notes:
Problem is that the Reader is lead to the wrong procedures.
Errata ID: 4448
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Roland Jesske
Date Reported: 2015-08-17
Section 4.6.4.2. says:
4.6.4.2. Procedures at the Proxy Procedures described within Section 4.5.2.2 apply. A related-icid and "related-icid-generated-at" MAY be added or modified by a proxy. A deletion of the elements could appear depending on the network policy and trust rules.
It should say:
4.6.4.2. Procedures at the Proxy Procedures described within Section 4.6.2.2 apply. A related-icid and "related-icid-generated-at" MAY be added or modified by a proxy. A deletion of the elements could appear depending on the network policy and trust rules.
Notes:
This pointer to a wrong section may lead to a wrong implementation