Hongchang Tian | 1 Apr 19:13 2003

RE: Interaction RFC3262 and Record-Route header included in 18xresponse

Another concern is the CSeq sequence number IN CSeq Hdr field for PRACK.

1).  According to RFC3261 (12.2.1.1, requests within a dialog MUST contain 
strictly monotonically increasing and contiguous CSeq sequence numbers
(increasing-by-one)
in each direction (excepting ACK and CANCEL of course, whose numbers equal
the requests 
being acknowledged or cancelled).  

2).  RFC3262 doesn't address the CSeq Hdr field for PRACK.

3).  Personally I think it makes sense for PRACK to follow the ACK rule
regarding
the CSeq sequence numbers (the same as the initial request.

Any comment about the above?

Cheers,

Hongchang Tian
Software Designer
Tel:  613-592-2100 x3266
Fax: 613-592-9634

SS8 Networks, Inc.
495 March Road
Kanata ON K2K 3G1
hongchang.tian <at> SS8.com
www.SS8.com

(Continue reading)

hisham.khartabil | 2 Apr 09:52 2003
Picon

RE: Interaction RFC3262 and Record-Route header included in 18xresponse

PRACK is a request within a dialog.

Regards,
Hisham

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Hongchang Tian [mailto:Hongchang.Tian <at> ss8.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 8:13 PM
> To: 'Takuya Sawada'; tomimura <at> sei.co.jp; sip <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Sip] Interaction RFC3262 and Record-Route 
> header included
> in 18xresponse
> 
> 
> Another concern is the CSeq sequence number IN CSeq Hdr field 
> for PRACK.
> 
> 1).  According to RFC3261 (12.2.1.1, requests within a dialog 
> MUST contain 
> strictly monotonically increasing and contiguous CSeq sequence numbers
> (increasing-by-one)
> in each direction (excepting ACK and CANCEL of course, whose 
> numbers equal
> the requests 
> being acknowledged or cancelled).  
> 
> 2).  RFC3262 doesn't address the CSeq Hdr field for PRACK.
> 
> 3).  Personally I think it makes sense for PRACK to follow 
> the ACK rule
(Continue reading)

Gonzalo Camarillo | 2 Apr 11:00 2003
Picon
Picon

Re: Some comments on RFC 3329 (Security Mechanism Agreement for the S ession Initiation Protocol)

Keith,

thanks for your comments. Answers inline.

Drage, Keith (Keith) wrote:
 > In looking at this RFC we detect some issues that ought to be
 > resolved even though this is a published RFC. There is also an issue
 > that is raised with regard to RFC 3261.
 >
 > 1)	Section 2.6, table 1. The Security-Verify header is not included
 > in the PRACK according to the table. It is our belief that the header
 > should be applicable to all methods except ACK and CANCEL, where we
 > agree that it makes no sense.

Yes, when you were discussing these issues within 3GPP, I already 
acknowledge this error. PRACKs should not be an exception. The only 
exceptions are CANCELs and ACKs.

We have two choices here.

1) Since you and we know that it is an errata, you add a note to your 
3GPP spec accordingly and when/if we release a revised version of 
sec-agree, we will correct it. This is what we have done with RFC3261 
and bugzilla so far.

2) We publish this errata at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html

For such a small thing, I would go for option 1, although I will be glad 
to publish the errata if you feel more comfortable.

(Continue reading)

Jay Morris | 2 Apr 08:37 2003
Picon

Record-Route and 1xx

 Hi,

The usage of Route and Record Route is still not clear to me when 1xx responses are used.

1.Should Record-Route headers be copied to any 1xx response of an early dialog?

2. Should requests sent before the dialog is established use this Record-Route list for routing the request?

3. Should the route list be replaced for each 1xx response of an early dialog or should the UAC use only the first received Record-Route list for this purpose?

Thanks,
Jay.

 


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
hisham.khartabil | 2 Apr 16:28 2003
Picon

RE: Record-Route and 1xx


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jay Morris [mailto:jay_m_morris <at> yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:37 AM
> To: sip <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [Sip] Record-Route and 1xx
> 
> 
>  Hi, 
> The usage of Route and Record Route is still not clear to me when 1xx responses are used.
> 1.Should Record-Route headers be copied to any 1xx response of an early dialog?

yes

> 2. Should requests sent before the dialog is established use this Record-Route list for routing the request?

A dialog is established with 1xx (and early dialog). Your question should ask if requests are sent before
the dialog is confirmed,  should they use this Record-Route list for routing the request. The answer is yes.

> 3. Should the route list be replaced for each 1xx response of an early dialog or should the UAC use only the
first received Record-Route list for this
>  purpose?

Replace. Also the 2xx that confirms the dialog replaces the route set. After that, route set is not replaceable.

Regards,
Hisham

> Thanks,
> Jay.
enter - File online, calculators, forms, and more
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors <at> cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping <at> ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

jh | 2 Apr 17:22 2003
Picon

RE: Record-Route and 1xx

hisham.khartabil <at> nokia.com writes:

 > Replace. Also the 2xx that confirms the dialog replaces the route
 > set. After that, route set is not replaceable. 

which is a bad thing and should be considered a bug.

-- juha

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors <at> cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping <at> ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

Robert Sparks | 2 Apr 19:16 2003

SIMPLE interoperability test event

For those that might not be watching the SIMPLE list closely -

Registration is now open for the SIMPLE interoperability test.
Please see http://simplet.jasomi.com for details.

RjS

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors <at> cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping <at> ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

Dean Willis | 2 Apr 22:55 2003

Please give consideration to SIMPLE event-list draft


Please give consideration to the SIMPLE event-list draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-event-list-01.txt

The SIMPLE working group has started a formal last call on this draft.

The SIP-chairs/Transport-ADs have not concluded on exactly how/if this draft
will be formally considered by the SIP working group before proceeding to
the IESG, but we should at least be aawre of the draft and assist in the
WGLC within SIMPLE to speed things up.

Thanks!

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors <at> cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping <at> ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

Jay Morris | 3 Apr 06:55 2003
Picon

RE: Record-Route and 1xx

Is this the case for any 1xx, or should the 1xx be reliable?

What about 100 response.

Jay.

 hisham.khartabil <at> nokia.com wrote:


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jay Morris [mailto:jay_m_morris <at> yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:37 AM
> To: sip <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [Sip] Record-Route and 1xx
>
>
> Hi,
> The usage of Route and Record Route is still not clear to me when 1xx responses are used.
> 1.Should Record-Route headers be copied to any 1xx response of an early dialog?

yes


> 2. Should requests sent before the dialog is established use this Record-Route list for routing the request?

A dialog is established with 1xx (and early dialog). Your question should ask if requests are sent before the dialog is confirmed, should they use this Record-Route list for routing the request. The answer is yes.

> 3. Should the route list be replaced for each 1xx response of an early dialog or should the UAC use o! nly the first received Record-Route list for this
> purpose?

Replace. Also the 2xx that confirms the dialog replaces the route set. After that, route set is not replaceable.

Regards,
Hisham


> Thanks,
> Jay.
enter - File online, calculators, forms, and more
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors <at> cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping <at> ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
Jonathan Rosenberg | 3 Apr 10:30 2003

Re: Record-Route and 1xx


Jay Morris wrote:
> Is this the case for any 1xx, or should the 1xx be reliable?

It is the case for any 1xx.

> 
> What about 100 response.

No:

> 12.1 Creation of a Dialog
> 
>    Dialogs are created through the generation of non-failure responses
>    to requests with specific methods.  Within this specification, only
>    2xx and 101-199 responses with a To tag, where the request was
>    INVITE, will establish a dialog.

Notice that 100 is left out of the picture.

-Jonathan R.

--

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Scientist                             Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
jdrosen <at> dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (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 sip-implementors <at> cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping <at> ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip


Gmane