|
List Info
Thread: Re: VS: SIPit21: BNF future-proofing problem?
|
|
| Re: VS: SIPit21: BNF future-proofing
problem? |
 
France |
2007-12-13 02:43:04 |
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> Correction, yes. Essential? Hardly.
>
> This is another question around essential corrections.
I think they
> not only need to clearly represent a bug or a fix, but
need to be one
> that is important enough to merit documenting. Just
like software,
> sometimes you don't ever bother fixing those sev 5s.
Ever.
Just would like to raise a small warning with the
"essential" vs
"non-essential" debate... Sometimes the most
"costly" bugs (in terms of
interoperability problems) are the smallest stupid nits.
Just one example, the FIRST proxy example of the RFC 3665 is
broken...
Contact of subsequent request is not correctly pushed in the
Request URI
with transport parameter, so, at SIPIT, I already have seen
many UAs
that behave incorrectly because of this... Ok this is
clearly written in
3261, but you know how developers do: "don't have time
to read this long
RFC, I will just look at the example :p"... And
the place you generally look at is 3665, and then, it is
broken (!)...
This is not "fixed" and I assume it will probably
never be... By the way
this is a question: would it be interesting for somebody to
fix 3665 examples, and if yes, how to proceed?
+
Thomas
>
> -Jonathan R.
>
> Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> No matter how we'll fix this, I guess it would be a
valid essential
>> correction?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Lähettäjä: Dale.Worley comcast.net [mailto ale.Worl
eycomcast.net]
>> Lähetetty: to 6.12.2007 21:09
>> Vastaanottaja: sipietf.org
>> Aihe: Re: [Sip] SIPit21: BNF future-proofing
problem?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosencisco.com>
>>
>> This strikes me as a problem in theory and not
in practice.
>> AFAICT, the
>> only characters you can't use are ascii
0x00-0x19 (0x20 is space
>> and is
>> possible through the LWS construct as Christer
pointed out). Is
>> there a
>> practical use case for any of these? They are:
>>
>> HT (horizontal tab) should be included, but that's
also in LWS. As
>> for the remaining characters, I don't think that
anyone has ever
>> *intended* that they be used in SIP headers, and
their inclusion in
>> quoted-pair was a typographical error.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP
Protocol
>> Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for
questions on current sip
>> Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP
Protocol
>> Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for
questions on current sip
>> Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
|
|
| RE: VS: SIPit21: BNF future-proofing
problem? |
 
Sweden |
2007-12-13 07:09:08 |
My opinion is that people who only implement based on
examples, without reading the actual protocol specification,
have themselves to blame - and they are going to run into
problems sooner or later, no matter how correct the exmaples
are.
If people are too lazy to read 3261 I don't think there is
anything IETF can do - or even should spend time on doing.
Regards,
Christer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Froment [mailto:Thomas.Fromentalcatel-lucent.fr]
> Sent: 13. joulukuuta 2007 10:43
> To: Jonathan Rosenberg
> Cc: Christer Holmberg; sipietf.org
> Subject: Re: VS: [Sip] SIPit21: BNF future-proofing
problem?
>
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> > Correction, yes. Essential? Hardly.
> >
> > This is another question around essential
corrections. I think they
> > not only need to clearly represent a bug or a fix,
but need
> to be one
> > that is important enough to merit documenting.
Just like software,
> > sometimes you don't ever bother fixing those sev
5s. Ever.
> Just would like to raise a small warning with the
"essential"
> vs "non-essential" debate... Sometimes the
most "costly" bugs
> (in terms of interoperability problems) are the
smallest stupid nits.
> Just one example, the FIRST proxy example of the RFC
3665 is
> broken...
> Contact of subsequent request is not correctly pushed
in the
> Request URI with transport parameter, so, at SIPIT, I
already
> have seen many UAs that behave incorrectly because of
this...
> Ok this is clearly written in 3261, but you know how
> developers do: "don't have time to read this long
RFC, I will
> just look at the example :p"... And the place you
generally
> look at is 3665, and then, it is broken (!)...
> This is not "fixed" and I assume it will
probably never be...
> By the way this is a question: would it be interesting
for
> somebody to fix 3665 examples, and if yes, how to
proceed?
> +
> Thomas
>
>
> >
> > -Jonathan R.
> >
> > Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> No matter how we'll fix this, I guess it would
be a valid
> essential
> >> correction?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Christer
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> Lähettäjä: Dale.Worleycomcast.net [mailtoale.Worl
eycomcast.net]
> >> Lähetetty: to 6.12.2007 21:09
> >> Vastaanottaja: sipietf.org
> >> Aihe: Re: [Sip] SIPit21: BNF future-proofing
problem?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosencisco.com>
> >>
> >> This strikes me as a problem in theory and
not in practice.
> >> AFAICT, the
> >> only characters you can't use are ascii
0x00-0x19 (0x20
> is space
> >> and is
> >> possible through the LWS construct as
Christer pointed out). Is
> >> there a
> >> practical use case for any of these? They
are:
> >>
> >> HT (horizontal tab) should be included, but
that's also in
> LWS. As
> >> for the remaining characters, I don't think
that anyone has ever
> >> *intended* that they be used in SIP headers,
and their
> inclusion in
> >> quoted-pair was a typographical error.
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >>
> >>
_______________________________________________
> >> Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> >> This list is for NEW development of the core
SIP Protocol Use
> >> sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for
questions on current sip Use
> >> sippingietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
_______________________________________________
> >> Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> >> This list is for NEW development of the core
SIP Protocol Use
> >> sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for
questions on current sip Use
> >> sippingietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
> >>
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
|
|
| Re: VS: SIPit21: BNF future-proofing
problem? |
|
2007-12-15 07:40:26 |
You are confusing 'small' with 'non-essential'. I agree
small bugs can
be essential to fix, and the one you pointed out (which is
not an
rfc3261 bug) is small and essential.
But this BNF problem that was raised is small but
NON-ESSENTIAL, and its
because I don't believe its essential, that I don't think it
merits
addressing.
-Jonathan R.
Thomas Froment wrote:
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>> Correction, yes. Essential? Hardly.
>>
>> This is another question around essential
corrections. I think they
>> not only need to clearly represent a bug or a fix,
but need to be one
>> that is important enough to merit documenting. Just
like software,
>> sometimes you don't ever bother fixing those sev
5s. Ever.
> Just would like to raise a small warning with the
"essential" vs
> "non-essential" debate... Sometimes the most
"costly" bugs (in terms of
> interoperability problems) are the smallest stupid
nits.
> Just one example, the FIRST proxy example of the RFC
3665 is broken...
> Contact of subsequent request is not correctly pushed
in the Request URI
> with transport parameter, so, at SIPIT, I already have
seen many UAs
> that behave incorrectly because of this... Ok this is
clearly written in
> 3261, but you know how developers do: "don't have
time to read this long
> RFC, I will just look at the example :p"... And
> the place you generally look at is 3665, and then, it
is broken (!)...
> This is not "fixed" and I assume it will
probably never be... By the way
> this is a question: would it be interesting for
somebody to
> fix 3665 examples, and if yes, how to proceed?
> +
> Thomas
>
>
>>
>> -Jonathan R.
>>
>> Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> No matter how we'll fix this, I guess it would
be a valid essential
>>> correction?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Lähettäjä: Dale.Worleycomcast.net [mailtoale.Worl
eycomcast.net]
>>> Lähetetty: to 6.12.2007 21:09
>>> Vastaanottaja: sipietf.org
>>> Aihe: Re: [Sip] SIPit21: BNF future-proofing
problem?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosencisco.com>
>>>
>>> This strikes me as a problem in theory and
not in practice.
>>> AFAICT, the
>>> only characters you can't use are ascii
0x00-0x19 (0x20 is space
>>> and is
>>> possible through the LWS construct as
Christer pointed out). Is
>>> there a
>>> practical use case for any of these? They
are:
>>>
>>> HT (horizontal tab) should be included, but
that's also in LWS. As
>>> for the remaining characters, I don't think
that anyone has ever
>>> *intended* that they be used in SIP headers,
and their inclusion in
>>> quoted-pair was a typographical error.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>>> This list is for NEW development of the core
SIP Protocol
>>> Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for
questions on current sip
>>> Use sippingietf.org for new
developments on the application of sip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>>> This list is for NEW development of the core
SIP Protocol
>>> Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for
questions on current sip
>>> Use sippingietf.org for new
developments on the application of sip
>>>
>>
>
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall
St.
Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ
08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
jdrosencisco.com
http://www.jdrosen.net
PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
|
|
[1-3]
|
|