IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Mon, 20 July 2009 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.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 4422C3A69A0 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 avzZ1Ys+ktLr for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw5.ericsson.se (mailgw5.ericsson.se [193.180.251.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FEC83A687C for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb24-b7c01ae00000498b-32-4a643b967769
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw5.ericsson.se (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 9D.C8.18827.69B346A4; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:40:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:40:38 +0200
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:40:37 +0200
Received: from [131.160.37.44] (EV001E681B5FE2.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.37.44]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936A52461; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:40:37 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4A643B95.3060800@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:40:37 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Francois Audet <audet@nortel.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1F05050C@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2009 09:40:37.0841 (UTC) FILETIME=[233DEC10:01CA091E]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org, R.Jesske@telekom.de
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: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:32:38 -0000

Hi,

as Francois suggests, a document specifying the use of Reason header 
fields in responses needs to specify those things (see Francois' list 
below). Additionally, you should think of whether or not Reason header 
fields in responses can carry SIP status codes and what happens if they 
are different to the status code of the response.

In short, the document cannot simply say that now it is OK to use Reason 
in responses. It needs to address the different situations a typical 
implementation may face.

Cheers,

Gonzalo


Francois Audet wrote:
> Again, the spec is very clear that it IS allowed.
> 
> I believe the wishy-washy text about "status code explicitly
> allowing it" was meant to exclude responses that were not appropriate,
> and restricing it to effectively error responses.
> 
> At the time this was written, I believe we were not clear on which
> codes were supposed to be appropriate or not.
> 
> Seems to me:
> - Any Error response code should be allowed.
> - I don't think 2XX makes sense.
> - 3XX is controversial (as per the email quoted by Roland): seems to me it
>   would be quite useful
> - Provisional is interesting... Sounds like 199 error response to me...
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30) 
>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:09
>> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
>> Cc: R.Jesske@telekom.de; dispatch@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
>>
>> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 12:48 -0400, Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) wrote:
>>> Hi Roland,
>>>
>>> You use case is very common.  
>>>
>>> I believe you are incorrect in saying that "reasons are 
>> currently not 
>>> allowed in responses. Neither conditionally nor allowed".
>>>
>>> RFC 3326 says in 1.0:
>>>   "[...] it can appear in any request
>>>    within a dialog, in any CANCEL request and in any response whose
>>>    status code explicitly allows the presence of this header field."
>>>
>>> To be honest, I believe Q.850 codes are much more common in 
>> Responses 
>>> than in requests.
>> Googling
>>
>>      "sip/2.0" reason "q.850"
>>
>> turns up numerous examples of SIP responses using the Reason 
>> header in the forbidden manner.
>>
>> I'd say that your draft formally allows what people are already doing.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email