Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-07.9 now available

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:24:47 -0500

Folks,

We've decided to do a "pre-release" of the -08 spec a few days before
-08 issues and it goes to IESG. That spec is now available at:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen/draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-07.9.pdf
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen/draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-07.9.txt
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen/draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-07.9.ps

It will *not* appear in the archives, as it represents an interim
working version.

This text, through the miracle of caffeine and many tireless nights
(including weekends), includes pretty much all of the hundreds of
comments (and I think its MANY hundreds of comments) that we got on the
list and in private on bis-07 and bis-06. It also:

* includes the new sips scheme that has been discussed
* only uses tags as dialog ID, not URIs anymore
* URI comparison rules consistently don't have explicit default equal no
value
* consistent use of routing and next hop determination terminology
* restriction on forking when route present has been lifted
* termination section now says BYE terminates a session
* 100rel is gone
* thorough review of tables 2/3 to bring to consistency with the text
* source ip/port not used as part of transaction ID
* use TCP if you are in within 200 bytes of MTU (used to be 500)
* backwards compatibility mechanisms for older, TCP-only implementations
added
* removed RTT estimation
* downgrade SMIME to MAY
* added application/sip mime registration

We've had some problems in the text versions of -06,-07 with the split
references section, which I think are finally ironed out. Howver, I NEED
a volunteer to check the references in the text, to make sure that every
reference is the same in txt and pdf, and that it references the right
thing.

Note that I will not be entertaining comments about improving formatting
bugs in the pdf/ps, since that document is not authoritative.

Any last minute items on this, speak now....

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.            72 Eagle Rock Avenue
Chief Scientist                         First Floor
dynamicsoft                             East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                 FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                  PH:  (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:28:39 -0500

Two problems in draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-07.9

1) The definitions of "Header field" and "Header field value" (at lines
635-637) do not match their usage in the text. A "Header field" is a field
name plus a colon followed by one or more header field values separated by
comma. The "Header field value" is simply a singular field-value (or
header-value) in a Header field.

2) At line 1222, the "less preferred URI" is the "lowest" q value, not the
"highest".

I am still reviewing the spec and will have more comments (mostly nits)
later today.

cheers,
(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
[email-masked]

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:40:40 -0500

> header-value) in a Header field.

I agree. I'll fix.

-Jonathan R.