Subject: [Sip] Comments on section 23 Common Message Components and section 24 Header Fields in bis-07

From: "Hisham Khartabil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:38:39 +0200

Line numbers refer to the pdf version.

Section 23.1.4
- line 4763: "A URI omitting the optional port component will match a URI
explicitly declaring port 5060."  will now read "A URI omitting the optional
port component will NOT match a URI explicitly declaring port 5060". Just to
save Jonathan some time.

- line 4769: is now also wrong about the transport parameter.

- line 4776: section number missing.

- line 4778: example is now wrong.

- line 4785: I thought this example was wrong also until I realised that the
"&priority=urgent" is missing from the .txt version but not the pdf (in the
first uri). There seems to be a few of those.

Section 23.1.5
- line 4810: "an" should be "a".

line 4830: "headerRequire" should be just "Require".

Section 24.7
- line 5006: extra CRLF

Section 24.11
- line 5070: extra CRLF

Section 26.16
- It should mention that the method part of the Cseq is case-sensitive.

Section 24.22
- Should mention the recommended value for max-forwards (70).

Section 24.26
- is there a default value or behaviour if the Priority header is not
present. eg: which message has higher priority? a message with Priority
header of "urgent", or a message with no priority header? I suggest
"normal".

Section 24.44
- line 5373: "as shown in the second example below". This is talking about
example in line 5382. But I was confused where the LWS is since I was
looking at the second example of the via header directly below this
sentence. Perhaps it should say "as shown in an example later in this
section". Or simply add some LWS in the second via.

Regards,
Hisham Khartabil

_______________________________________________
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: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:48:48 -0600

These comments have been addressed.
One comment below.

RjS

> header of "urgent", or a message with no priority header? I suggest

Added SHOULD be treated as "non-urgent" to align with callerprefs.