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

and explain why 3XX, 2XX and 1XX don't make sense. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: R.Jesske@telekom.de [mailto:R.Jesske@telekom.de] 
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 22:03
> To: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Cc: Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30); dispatch@ietf.org
> Subject: AW: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> 
> Hi Gonzalo,
> Thank you for your comments.
> You are correct. The used cases within the document shows 
> where ISUP causes will be included.
> I think in such cases we should clearly state that SIP Reason 
> should be excluded within SIP responses, to avoid contradictions. 
> 
> Then I will include that only within 4xx/5xx/6xx Responses 
> the Reason header with an Q.850 Cause makes sense.
> 
> There are requirements and three used cases described within 
> the draft so I hope that fits. 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Roland
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 20. Juli 2009 11:41
> An: Francois Audet
> Cc: Dale Worley; dispatch@ietf.org; Jesske, Roland
> Betreff: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> 