RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 6 records.

Status: Verified (6)

RFC 6044, "Mapping and Interworking of Diversion Information between Diversion and History-Info Headers in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", October 2010

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7544

Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT

Errata ID: 3071
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Marianne MOHALI
Date Reported: 2012-01-04
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-01-04

Section 5 says:

"unavailable"-----------------------------404

It should say:

"unavailable"-----------------------------503

Notes:

This correction is done to be consistent with the reverse mapping and the fact that "unavailable" reason is used for unreachability cases.

Errata ID: 2603
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Hadriel Kaplan
Date Reported: 2010-11-04
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-01-04

Section 7.1 says:

   INVITE last_diverting_target
   Diversion:
   diverting_user3_address;reason=unconditional;counter=1;privacy=off,
   diverting_user2_address;reason=user-busy;counter=1;privacy=full,
   diverting_user1_address;reason=no-answer;counter=1;privacy=off

It should say:

   INVITE last_diverting_target
   Diversion:
   <sip:diverting_user3_address>;reason=unconditional;counter=1;privacy=off,
   <sip:diverting_user2_address>;reason=user-busy;counter=1;privacy=full,
   <sip:diverting_user1_address>;reason=no-answer;counter=1;privacy=off

Notes:

The examples in section 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 and also in 3.2 show the Diversion header field using an "address" that is not a SIP (or Tel) URI, and without the "<" ">" delimeters. That is not correct. It is confusing, because the History-Info examples show it correctly, and thus imply the two address formats are not the same and need to be interworked, whereas in fact they are both name-addr fields, and thus both need to have the "<" and ">", etc.

Errata ID: 2604
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Hadriel Kaplan
Date Reported: 2010-11-04
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-01-04

Section 7.1 says:

   History-Info:
   <sip: diverting_user1_address; privacy=none >; index=1,

It should say:

   History-Info:
   <sip:diverting_user1_address?Privacy=none>;index=1,

Notes:

The example does not show the "?" embedded URI header indicator for the Privacy header in the URI, but instead shows it as a URI parameter.

Errata ID: 2605
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Hadriel Kaplan
Date Reported: 2010-11-04
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-01-04

Section 3.1 says:

   History-Info:
   <sip: diverting_user1_addr?Privacy=none?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%
   3D302>;index=1,

It should say:

   History-Info:
   <sip: diverting_user1_addr?Privacy=none&Reason=SIP%3Bcause%
   3D302>;index=1,

Notes:

The example shows two embedded headers, but using two "?" tokens which is incorrect - there is only one "?" token, and all subsequent embedded headers need to use "&". (as per RFC 3261 ABNF rules)

Errata ID: 3077
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Marianne Mohali
Date Reported: 2012-01-05
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-04-11

Section 2.2.1 says:

|       |       |INVITE |       |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |------>|       |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |History-Info:  |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |<sip:proxyP1>; index=1,|       |     |       |        |
|       |       |<sip:userB>; index=1.1 |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |<sip:userC>; cause=302; index=1.1.1  |       |        |

It should say:

|       |       |INVITE |       |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |------>|       |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |History-Info:  |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |<sip:proxyP1>; index=1,|       |     |       |        |
|       |       |<sip:userB>; index=1.1,|       |     |       |        |
|       |       |<sip:userC; cause=302>; index=1.1.1  |       |        |

Notes:

The "cause" parameter is an URI parameter defined in RFC4458. So that, it is included in the SIP-URI which is represented by the name-addr parameter (between <>) of the History-Info header.
There was also a missing COMMA at the end of "index=1.1".

Errata ID: 3176
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Brett Tate
Date Reported: 2012-04-04
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-04-11

Section 3.2 says:

Diversion:

diverting_user2_addr; reason="user-busy"; counter=1; privacy=full,
diverting_user1_addr; reason="unconditional"; counter=1; privacy=off

It should say:

Diversion:

<sip:diverting_user2_address>; reason=user-busy; counter=1; privacy=full,
<sip:diverting_user1_address>; reason=unconditional; counter=1; privacy=off

Notes:

Errata 2603 already reported that the example did not correctly contain name-addr values. This is to report that the selected reason values should not be within quotes since these values have been explicitly defined to be non quoted. More specifically, the quotes within the example add confusion since RFC 5806 examples had similar quoting issues for values defined without quotes.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search