Subject: [Sip] More bis-06 comments/nits

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:08:28 -0700

I am continuing the list from #13 below.  Hopefully these are not too
late...

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.

Continued:

13. Line 1601, remove period after "using".

14. Line 1668, "MUST then converted" should be "MUST then be converted".

15. Releated to item 5 above, lines 1718-1722 imply varying values of
Max-Forwards can be sent by a UA, in conflict with the language in line
1040.

16. Line 1792, remove dash after "method".

17. Looks like conversion corruption is taking place after italicized words
"route set". Section 12.2.1.1, 12.2.1.2 and 12.2.2 in the text version has
some missing text compared to the PDF version lines 1909, 1915, 1923 and
1976.  There is an unneeded space in the text version between "route set"
and following comma (corresponding to line 1911, 1937, 1962 and 1977 in
PDF).  There is a missing period in the text version after "route set"
corresponding to line 1939.

18. Line 2059, "construction" should be "constructing" (carried over from
bis-05).

19. The text version has indented text corresponding to PDF version lines
2267-2268 which is not indented.

20. Line 2288, "BYE of CANCEL"  should be "BYE or CANCEL".

21. The text version has indented text corresponding to PDF version lines
2290-2292 which is not indented.

22. Line 2406 has "request." which is missing in corresponding text version
section 16.3.

23. Lines 2428-2429 in PDF are indented, corresponding text in text version
is not indented.

24. Lines 2574-2577 in PDF are indented, corresponding text in text version
is not indented.

25. Line 2583 is related to items 5 and 15 above.  Also, whatever verbage is
arrived at on that issue, should have a MUST to add the Max-Forwards (it's
currently lower case).  This is because section 16.3 #2 allows missing
Max-Forwards, and #3 following it allows loop detection to be optional.
With those two items, a proxy MUST add the Max-Forwards header if missing to
prevent loops from going undetected.

26. Line 2595, "wishes remain" should be "wishes to remain".

27. Line 2598 in PDF is indented, corresponding text in text version is not
indented.

28. Lines 2603-2605 in PDF are indented, corresponding text in text version
is not indented.

29. Lines 2616-2618 in PDF are indented, corresponding text in text version
is not indented.

30. Line 2650, "by transaction" should be "by the transaction".

31. Line 2671, "address that ordered set" should be "address in that ordered
set".

32. Line 2679, "MUST set" should be "MUST be set".

33. Lines 2729-2732 in PDF are indented, corresponding text in text version
is not indented.

34. Lines 2749-2754 in PDF are indented, corresponding text in text version
is not indented.

35. Lines 2802-2807 in PDF are indented, corresponding text in text version
is not indented.

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