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

List:       sip-implementors
Subject:    [Sip-implementors] Comments and questions on bis03
From:       Takumi Ohba <ohba.takumi () lab ! ntt ! co ! jp>
Date:       2001-06-26 11:06:18
Message-ID: 200106261106.UAA25988 () imi ! m ! ecl ! ntt ! co ! jp
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

Followings are comments and questions on bis03.  Some are technical and some
are minor editorial.
I hope these will help updating bis03.

(1) In the definition of "call leg" in 1.4,
"SUP usage agents" -> "SIP user agents"

(2) 1.4.2 and [35] seems identical now, but some parts in bis03, such as
10.46.5 and 16.3, refer [35], not 1.4.2.  Why don't they refer 1.4.2?

(3) 2nd sentence of 4th paragraph in 1.4.5 say "... it is possible that a
client is reached, independently, by more than one copy of the invitation
request.", but "server" not "client" is reached by the requests.

(4) The definition of "ttl" is in Figure 9, but "ttl" is used in Figure 3
first.  It should be defined in Figure 3, not in Figure 9.

(5) 1st sentence in 4.2:
REGISTER 7 -> REGISTER (Section7)

(6) 3rd paragraph in 5.1.1 refers Section 5.1 for details on the
relationship between session descriptions in INVITE and ACK requests, but
they are now in Section B.

(7) Section 6 says that BYE SHOULD be supported by UAS, but UAC, of course,
MUST support it.

(8) 411 in Figure 6 should be removed.

(9) 513 is missing in Figure 7.

(10) 3rd sentence of 2nd paragraph in 10.15 says "For
backward-compatibility, if the Content-Disposition header is not missing,
...".  Does it really want to say that " For backward-compatibility, if the
Content-Disposition header is missing, ..."?

(11) 1st sentence in 10.46.2 should be "..., as seen from that proxy or UAS".

(12) The 1st bullet item in 10.46.5 says "If the "sent-protocol" is a
reliable transport protocol such as TCP, TLS or SCTP, send the response
using the existing TCP connection to the source of the original request."
The second "TCP" should be removed or it should be "TCP, TLS, or SCTP".

(13) The last "Via" example in 10.46.6 in the PDF version is different from
that in the text version.  I guess the former is correct.

(14) 2nd paragraph in 11.1 only allow for UAS to include SDP in 1xx response
if the UAC has included one in an earlier INVITE.  Does it intentionally
mean that 1xx response can't contain the offer?

(15) The description in 11.4.18 is a little bit ambiguous.  It should refer
17.3.1.

(16) The message example in section 13 does not match to the one in 20.2.
It should be aligned to the one in 20.2.

(17) In the 1st sentence of 3rd paragraph,
ÿ than that that for TCP -> ÿ than that for TCP

(18) In the last sentence of 4th paragraph,
Also note than -> Also note that

(19) In the last paragraph in 14.4.1,
If the 200 response were to get lost, such situation is recovered by 200
response retransmission, not by INVITE retransmission.  Therefore, the
sentence "Thus, the INIVTE retransmission interval would have to be ÿ" seems
strange.  It may be "Thus, the 200 response interval would have to be ÿ".

(20) Figure 11 shows the transition from the Confirmed state to the
Completed state after 32s, but there seems not prose text correspond to
this. Why?

(21) "Sectionsec:rr:proxy2" in the last sentence of 3rd paragraph in section
16 may be "Section 16.3".

(22) "a pre-loaded route set" in the last sentence in 16.6 may be "a
pre-loaded Route", not a route set.

(23) 2nd paragraph in 17.3.6 only refers TCP, but it should also refer TLS
and SCTP.

(24) "MAY" in 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph in 17.4 should be "may" because
of the same reason in 16.1.

(25) Content-Type header in the 1st message example in 18.1.1 should have
"$" mark.

(26) In 20.2.1, the second Via header is explained as from outbound proxy.
Such configuration may be possible, but is it typically from the host on
which UAC is?

(27) In 20.3, Watson will send audio data to port 3456 at kton.bell-tel.com,
not c.bell-tel.com (2nd paragraph after the message examples)

(28) In 20.4, Call-ID should be the same as in the previous section;
662606876@kton.bell-tel.com, not 3298420296.

(29) In 3rd paragraph in B.2.1, closing parentheses just after "(Section
B.3" and "(Section B.4" are missing.

(30) B.2.1 allows zero m lines in SDP, but RFC2327 doesn't. (m line doesn't
have the optional mark "*" in section 6/RFC2327).  Does it an intentional
difference?

(31) In the last sentence but one in B.4, "the number of m lines in a
stream" should be "the number of m lines in a session".

(32) In the SDP example in B.5, Bob doesn't explicitly indicate "a" line
corresponding to PT=1.  "a" line is optional, but as for an example, it
should be indicated, I think.

(33) 17th item in Section I, "both an INVITE and CANCEL" must be "both a BYE
and CANCEL".

(34) There are some "Cseq".  They should be "CSeq".

(35) Is there any difference between "request URI" and "Request-URI"?  If
not, all should be "Request-URI".


Regards,
Takumi Ohba

***************************************************
Takumi OHBA
NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
tel +81 422 59 4405  fax +81 422 59 3494
e-mail ohba.takumi@lab.ntt.co.jp
***************************************************



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