Subject: [Sip] bis-06 comments/nits

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:06:55 -0700

I didn't get to finish reviewing bis-06 yet, but wanted to post what I had
so it hopefully makes it into bis-07 expected Monday.

1. Section 3 in the text version (PDF version OK) is missing a space in
"SHALL NOT" (carried over from bis-05).

2. The text on figure 1 on page 11 is all messed up in the pdf version.
Looks like a different language.

3. Line 389 indicates the example contains a minimum required set, but the
newly mandatory Max-Forwards is not included.  Max-Forwards also appears to
be missing in other examples that otherwise appear to have the other minimum
required headers, such as sections 11.1, 11.2, 21.4.1 (see note below),
21.4.2, and all requests in section 26.  Note, it is debatable whether a
Max-Forwards is required in a tunneled Invite as in section 21.4.1, this
should get a bit of list discussion.  My take is yes, incase some B2BUA or
something takes it out and forwards it un-tunneled.  I see no reason to
special-case this.

4. Section 4, the example 200 OK has the Via list messed up.  Looks like the
first Via in the list (line 456) should be the last one (line 458).  The
last Via has the wrong branch compared to the Invite example.  The first Via
should probably have the biloxi domain in it, not the atlanta domain, and
something different than pc33 to avoid reader confusion with the Via added
by Alice's PC.

5. Line 1040, I can't recall in the list discussion if there was any
specific reason to disallow the value from being more or less than the
selected value of 70 beyond future proofing this for really big networks.
The current wording locks UACs into always putting 70 in the header.  I can
see including the header is a MUST, but wonder if the stated value of 70
should be a SHOULD or RECOMMENDED to allow UAs some leeway.

6. Line 1151, is timeout the ONLY thing the TU will see?  What happens when
an ICMP host unreachable is returned?  Does that not get to the TU?  Related
to this, should line 1184 "or network timeouts" be "or network failures"?

7. Line 1172 references non-existent section 22.10.

8. Line 1334, sooon should be soon.

9. Line 1351, delete last "the" in the line (grammar).

10. Line 1353, "amd" should be "and".

11. Line 1356 "complete" should be "completely".

12. Section 10.1 of the text version has a space before a comma in three
places.  PDF version is OK (lines 1493-1495).  This was also a problem
carried over from bis-05.

John Hearty
Level3

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip