Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Cases when "updated by" is and isn't used are subtle and sometimes
> controversial. But in general, when a new document makes an extension
> via an explicit extension point in the sip syntax, then it typically
> isn't marked as an extension.
My impression is that in SIP, when an RFC does not syntactically expand
SIP and does not redefine the semantics of a situation whose semantics
are already defined, then it often isn't flagged as an update to RFC
3261. But that's just my impression.
On 2/3/16 11:23 AM, Sheldon Patry wrote:
> Also,
> with only RFC 3261,
> Contact: <sip:[local_ip]>;mobility=fixed
> was valid.
> However, with RFC 3840,
> Contact: <sip:[local_ip]>;mobility=fixed
> is invalid, we MUST have
> Contact: <sip:[local_ip]>;mobility="fixed"
>
> How is that possible that 3840 "broke" 3261?
You can tell that it hasn't syntactically narrowed RFC 3261 in this way:
The original production is
contact-params = c-p-q / c-p-expires
/ contact-extension
The new production is
contact-params = c-p-q / c-p-expires / feature-param
/ contact-extension
Comparing the two, you can see that any <contact-params> of the first
type is also a <contact-params> of the second type.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
