#42
|
Backwards compatibility
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#34
|
Semantics of History-Info values need to be documented explicitly
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#41
|
Why does only "mp" have a value?
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#21
|
"request not associated with an established dialog"
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#27
|
Functionality of "Supported: histinfo" is not clear
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#23
|
Which elements a particular normative passage applies to
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#3
|
Gaps in H-I headers should NOT be treated as "malicious"
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
25/08/10
|
#4
|
The new "hit" parameter is gonna cause problems
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
25/08/10
|
#8
|
It's not clear when a Proxy should/should-not add H-I for "internal" stuff
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
30/08/10
|
#13
|
Section 7 item 2 is not complete
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
30/08/10
|
#14
|
Section 7 item 4 is useless or misleading
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
30/08/10
|
#15
|
Section 7 item 5 is wrong
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
30/08/10
|
#20
|
Handling canceled forks
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#28
|
UACs should add H-I if they implement it
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#35
|
"target parameter" is used but seems to have no meaning
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#38
|
How is the mapping of a GRUU into its UA Contact marked?
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#45
|
4244bis-02: REFER handling not clear
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
07/11/10
|
#10
|
Convert all SHOULDs to MUST
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
30/08/10
|
#12
|
Section 7 on Application Considerations needs work
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
30/08/10
|
#29
|
B2BUAs passing H-I through?
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#18
|
Awkward description
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#25
|
Proxy adding H-I must create element 1.
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#43
|
Small fixes
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
|
defect
|
|
new
|
17/09/10
|
#19
|
Show 487 response to CANCEL
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#1
|
Editorial: section 3 is not an "Overview of Operations"
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
25/08/10
|
#2
|
Editorial: section 2 is really confusing
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
25/08/10
|
#5
|
Privacy value of "session" should NOT apply to H-I headers
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
26/08/10
|
#6
|
Editorial: incorrect 6.3.4 rule 4 explanatory text
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
26/08/10
|
#7
|
Request timeouts are 408, NOT 487 status codes
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
26/08/10
|
#11
|
H-I does not provide a "stronger security solution for SIP"
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
30/08/10
|
#24
|
Redirect servers
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#40
|
Clarify mp-value
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#44
|
4244bis-02: security section misleading
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
07/11/10
|
#9
|
What should an SBC do when it resolves registered contacts?
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
30/08/10
|
#16
|
Privacy behavior is confusing
|
rfc4244bis
|
2.0
|
milestone1
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
30/08/10
|
#37
|
Clarify use of rc vs. mp
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
enhancement
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|
#32
|
Section 6.1 para 2 phrasing
|
rfc4244bis
|
|
milestone1
|
defect
|
|
new
|
31/08/10
|