Table2/3 maintenance (was Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3261 (2910))

(removing the RFC Editor, and setting reply-to to the sipcore list)

Some thing to think about when considering errata on the existing Tables 2 =
and 3 in RFC3261:

We have had many conversations about the utility of maintaining tables 2 an=
d 3.
I think the most recent was around the Anaheim meeting - see the notes at:
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/77/minutes/sipcore.html>

We had strong support for not continuing to add information to Tables 2 and=
 3, but not
to remove the existing tables from the document.  Maintaining the existing =
table is
probably a separate question, but keep the arguments noted in the minutes a=
bove in
mind when choosing to do so.

RjS

On Aug 2, 2011, at 1:28 PM, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 2011/8/2 Bob Penfield <[email protected]>:
>> The entry in the table should be "c" (not "m"). A Contact is not require=
d in a 100 Trying response. The Contact is only required for a 1xx that cre=
ates a dialog.
> =

> Right.
> =

> -- =

> I=F1aki 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 spec=
ifications.