'[SIP] RFC 2543bis - SDP Compliance, ABNF'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List: sip
Subject: [SIP] RFC 2543bis - SDP Compliance, ABNF
From: "Jean Jervis" <jjervis () nortelnetworks ! com>
Date: 2000-06-29 12:17:28
[Download RAW message or body]

Here are some comments on the SIP RFC2543bis Draft.

1. Section 16.8 OPTIONS Request. The example SDP here does not have a c=
line. I believe it needs one, either at the session level or as part of each
media description in order to be compliant with the SDP spec.

2. Appendix B.7 Subject and SDP "s=" Line. This section indicates that the
s= line may be left empty for invitations to two-party sessions. This is not
compliant with the grammar in the SDP RFC (Appendix A) which requires at
least one character in the session name (which may be a blank). 

3. Appendix B.8 SDP "o=" Line. I had trouble with the wording "not strictly
necessary". Does this mean that the o= line is not always required or that
it is always required, but sometimes not very useful? Wouldn't it be best to
always be compliant with the SDP RFC, and just require that it be present?

4. Appendix C Summary of Augmented BNF. The *rule description seems to have
a problem with the < and > characters in <n>, etc. I see upside down ! and ?
(Spanish punctuation marks?). Don't know if this is just occurring at my end
or there is actually a problem with the document source.

My apologies if I have misunderstood any of these points.

Regards,
Jean Jervis
Nortel Networks

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2651.65">
<TITLE>[SIP] RFC 2543bis - SDP Compliance, ABNF</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Here are some comments on the SIP RFC2543bis \
Draft.</FONT> </P>

1. Section 16.8 OPTIONS Request. The example SDP here \
does not have a c= line. I believe it needs one, either at the session level or as \
part of each media description in order to be compliant with the SDP spec.

2. Appendix B.7 Subject and SDP &quot;s=&quot; Line. \
This section indicates that the s= line may be left empty for invitations to \
two-party sessions. This is not compliant with the grammar in the SDP RFC (Appendix \
A) which requires at least one character in the session name (which may be a blank). \

3. Appendix B.8 SDP &quot;o=&quot; Line. I had trouble \
with the wording &quot;not strictly necessary&quot;. Does this mean that the o= line \
is not always required or that it is always required, but sometimes not very useful? \
Wouldn't it be best to always be compliant with the SDP RFC, and just require that it \
be present?

4. Appendix C Summary of Augmented BNF. The *rule \
description seems to have&nbsp; a problem with the &lt; and &gt; characters in \
&lt;n&gt;, etc. I see upside down ! and ? (Spanish punctuation marks?). Don't know if \
this is just occurring at my end or there is actually a problem with the document \
source.

<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">My apologies if I have misunderstood any of these \
points.</FONT> </P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Jean Jervis</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Nortel Networks</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
SIP@lists.bell-labs.com
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 