IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 06 November 2009 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802FD3A69BE for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:40:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wFWZ+TJmj-Kl for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B773A67A7 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:40:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host-144-65.meeting.ietf.org (host-144-65.meeting.ietf.org [133.93.144.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA6EFuqS091097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:15:58 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4AF37113.8030908@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:42:59 +0900
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: R.Jesske@telekom.de
References: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD40498CFB8@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de> <1246894612.3747.17.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD40498D2CA@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de> <1247255492.3757.40.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD404A14E83@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1F050471@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <1247764118.4085.24.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com><1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1F05050C@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com><4A643B95.3060800@ericsson.com><9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD404A9C2B7@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1F155AC5@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <CA9998CD4A020D418654FCDEF4E707DF0B1683CC@esealmw113.eemea.ericsson.se> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1F556A65@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD404BFFC37@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD404BFFC37@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 133.93.144.65 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: audet@nortel.com, dispatch@ietf.org, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:40:21 -0000

On 8/6/09 7:28 PM, R.Jesske@telekom.de 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email