Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04

[Brett Tate <[e-mail]>]

Although some people/documents might use 1xx when they really mean "101-199", rfc3261 section 7.2 indicates that 100 is included within 1xx.

"For this reason, any response with a status code between 100 and 199 is referred to as a "1xx response","

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:59 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> 
> 
> 
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hello Paul,
> > Thank you for your comment. I have the sam opinion. Due to the fact
> that 1xx is not done end to end
> 
> 1xx means 101-199, excluding 100. Only 100 is hop by hop. All the 1xx
> are end to end.
> 
> > I have put the following sentence into the draft.
> >
> > The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to final responses
> >    3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx and 18x and 199 provisional responses
> >    [I-D.ietf-sipcore-199].
> 
> I'd prefer to see it just say 1xx.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> > I hope that fits.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Roland
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Im
> Auftrag von Paul Kyzivat
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 22:58
> > An: Belling, Thomas (NSN - DE/Munich)
> > Cc: Paul While; [e-mail]; Jesske, Roland; ext Calme,James A
> (Jim)
> > Betreff: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> >
> > I hate to see *anything* restricted to 183, rather than being
> applicable
> > to all 1xx (or at least 18x) responses.
> >
> > Restricting to 183 implies that there is something *special* about
> 183.
> > I have seen that erroneous assumption in the wild too - and it is
> > distressing. Anything you can do with 183 should also work with 180.
> >
> > 	Thanks,
> > 	Paul
> >
> > Belling, Thomas (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> >> Dear Roland,
> >>
> >> we discussed the interworking of ISUP ACM and CPG causes to SIP
> reasons headers in provisional responses in 3GPP CT3 yesterday.
> >> The conclusion was that we will only insert a reason header in a 183
> provisional response.
> >>
> >> May I therefor suggest the following wording:
> >>
> >>         The Reason header is applicable to 3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx
> final responses
> >>         and 183 and 199 <reference> provisional responses.
> >>
> >> Further, it would be very helpfull for 3GPP if you could make the
> updated draft available very quickly as we have several dependent CRs
> in the 3GPP CTx meeting which is ongoing this week.
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> Dr. Thomas Belling
> >> 3GPP Standardisation
> >> Nokia Siemens Networks
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of ext Christer Holmberg
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:12 AM
> >> To: Paul Kyzivat; [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo
> >> Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> A small editorial change proposal:
> >>
> >> "The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to 3xx, 4xx, 5xx
> and 6xx final responses and 18x and 199 <reference> provisional
> responsess."
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Christer
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> >> Sent: 10. marraskuuta 2009 3:06
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo
> >> Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> >>
> >> Roland,
> >>
> >> Thanks! That addresses my concern.
> >>
> >> 	Thanks,
> >> 	Paul
> >>
> >> [e-mail] wrote:
> >>> Hello Paul,
> >>> Thanks for that hint. I will change this too.
> >>> Like:
> >>>
> >>>  The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to final
> responses
> >>>        3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx and in addition for 199 Responses as
> defined within
> >>>        ietf-sipcore-199.txt. Also the Reason header is
> >>>        applicable to provisional responses18x.
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards
> >>>
> >>> Roland
> >>>
> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>> Von: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 12:58
> >>> An: Jesske, Roland
> >>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> Betreff: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [e-mail] wrote:
> >>>> Hi Adam,
> >>>> Thank you for your mail. So I propose the following text then:
> >>>>
> >>>> The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to final
> responses
> >>>>       3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx and in addition for 199 Responses as
> defined within
> >>>>       ietf-sipcore-199.txt. Also the Reason header is
> >>>>       applicable to provisional responses18x which are generated
> by an
> >>>>       interworking gateway from ISUP to SIP.</t>
> >>> I think this is ok *except* if you are going to allow one kind of
> UAS
> >>> to use Reason in a 18x response, then it should be allowed for
> *any*
> >>> UAS to do so.
> >>>
> >>> For instance, suppose the gateway is replaced by a B2BUA to another
> >>> sip environment, and the request eventually arrives as a gateway.
> Then
> >>> a 18x response with a Reason header may arrive at the B2BUA and
> need
> >>> to be replicated on the other side.
> >>>
> >>> 	Thanks,
> >>> 	Paul
> >>>
> >>>> Best Beagards
> >>>>
> >>>> Roland
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. November 2009 01:43
> >>>> An: Jesske, Roland
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>> Betreff: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/6/09 7:28 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Christer and Francois,
> >>>>> I have added a sentence under section Overall Applicability:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to final
> responses 4xx, 5xx and 6xx and in addition for 199 Responses.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this proper enough? Or do you have more in mind?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Given that RFC 3398 specifies the generation of a 301 in response
> to
> >>>> a cause code of 22 under certain circumstances, it seems pretty
> >>>> appropriate to allow the inclusion of a Q.850 cause code in 300-
> class
> >>>> responses also. Or, at least, as appropriate as it would be to
> >>>> include them in 4xx, 5xx, and 6xx responses.
> >>>>
> >>>> /a
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> dispatch mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dispatch mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dispatch mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dispatch mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > dispatch mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch