======================================================================
RFC5923, "Connection Reuse in SIP"
Source of RFC: sip (rai)
Errata ID: 2310
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-06-24
Section 8.2 says:
[[ in the last paragraph at the bottom of page 13: ]]
The server, if it decides to reuse the connection, MUST cache in the
alias table the identity (or identities) of the client as they appear
| in the X.509 certificate subjectAlternativeName extension field. [...]
^^^^^^^^^^^
It should say:
The server, if it decides to reuse the connection, MUST cache in the
alias table the identity (or identities) of the client as they appear
| in the X.509 certificate subjectAltName extension field. [...]
^^^
Notes:
Rationale:
Mis-spelling of the defined certificate extension name --
see (for example) RFC 5280.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended status: (correct) Hold for document update
Type: Editorial
It appears that both "subjectAltName" and "subjectAlternativeName" are
used, though the former is more common. Someone who knows the history
may be able to shed some light on this.
======================================================================
RFC5954, "Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261"
Source of RFC: sip (rai)
Errata ID: 2502
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-08-23
Section 4.2, page 5 says:
NEW:
o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
| components must match. If the host component contains a textual
| representation of IP addresses, then the representation of those
IP addresses may vary. If so, the host components are considered
to match if the different textual representations yield the same
binary IP address.
It should say:
NEW:
o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
| components must match. If both host components contain the textual
| representation of an IP address, then the representation of those
IP addresses may vary. If so, the host components are considered
to match if the different textual representations yield the same
binary IP address.
Notes:
Rationale: Essential clarification of potentially misleading grammar
and semantics including singular/plural mismatches. Because of the
perceived significance, this erratum is designated as Technical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended status: (correct) Hold for document update
Type: Editorial
Certainly the proposed wording is better, though it is not clear how
the original text could be misread in the context of SIP.
======================================================================
Dale
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
