Re: Possible bug in "Non-INVITE Client Transaction" - 17.1.2.2

Since, as Iñaki noted, implementations are almost always getting this right,
I plan to put this errata into the "Hold for Document Update" state
(see <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html>).

RjS

On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:56 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 2011/4/8 Dean Willis <[email protected]>:
>> I think you're right that the spec is written incorrectly. I believe it should describe that the multiplier on T1 doubles with each reset. This is not clear in the existing text. So for example, if 8*T1 < T2, then the third reset is 8*T1, and if 16*T1 < T2, then the 4th reset is 16*T2
>> 
>> Otherwise said, MIN(2^N*T1,T2) where N is the repetition iterator.
> 
> That would clarify it, right.
> 
> 
>>> PS: Sorry for the cross-posting, I don't know which maillist is better
>>> to report it.
>> 
>> [email protected] would probably be the right place.
> 
> Finally I've reported an errata for RFC 3261 (hope it's also a good place):
> 
>  http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3261
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot.
> 
> -- 
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <[email protected]>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
> Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation.
> Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip.
> Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation.
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip.
Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.