Subject: [Sip] Query about test case in [ETSI TS 102 027-2 V4.1.1 (2006-07)]

From: Lavis Chow <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:55:19 +0800

Hi,

In ETSI TS 102 027-2 V4.1.1 (2006-07), test case SIP_CC_PR_TR_SE_V_014, it
mentioned :

<Quote>
TPId:   SIP_CC_PR_TR_SE_V_014

Status: PICS: A.77/3.2

Ref:    RFC 3261 [1] sections 17.2.2 and 17.2.3.

Purpose: Ensure that the IUT in a server BYE Proceeding state, on receipt of
a BYE request, including a Via header set with a different branch parameter
without the magic cookie "z9hG4bK" but with the Request-URI, To tag, From
tag, Call-ID, CSeq and top Via header identical as in the first BYE request,
repeats its last response.
</Quote>

But as per Via header comparison rule defined in RFC3261 20.42 Via, 

<Quote>
   Two Via header fields are equal if their sent-protocol and sent-by
   fields are equal, both have the same set of parameters, and the
   values of all parameters are equal.
</Quote>

So that one Via with different branch value, so second BYE with a different
branch parameter will never the transaction create by the first BYE, so it
shall not repeats its last response. so the test case is wrong.

Does I miss sth?

Thanks,
Lavis 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群
组。禁
止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮
件中
的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which 
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any
use of the 
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
total or partial 
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
intended 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender by 
phone or email immediately and delete it!

_______________________________________________
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: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:24:04 -0400

From: Lavis Chow <[email-masked]>

Since "z9hG4bK" is not to be present, it may be testing RFC 2543
behavior.  Does this test make sense in that light?

Dale

---

From: Lavis Chow <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 10:45:38 +0800

Not sure the purpose is  the "Purpose" list in the test case or for 2543
test?

 But the [Ref] listed in the test case is reference to RFC3261.

And for RFC2543(not bis02 afterwards) server, it didn't check the Via for
the request matching transaction at all.

Lavis

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sip] Query about test case in [ETSI TS 102 027-2 V4.1.1
(2006-07)]

   Purpose: Ensure that the IUT in a server BYE Proceeding state, on receipt
of
   a BYE request, including a Via header set with a different branch
parameter
   without the magic cookie "z9hG4bK" but with the Request-URI, To tag, From
   tag, Call-ID, CSeq and top Via header identical as in the first BYE
request,
   repeats its last response.

Since "z9hG4bK" is not to be present, it may be testing RFC 2543 behavior.
Does this test make sense in that light?

Dale

_______________________________________________
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