IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<R.Jesske@telekom.de> Tue, 07 July 2009 05:17 UTC

Return-Path: <R.Jesske@telekom.de>
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 382E43A6B4F for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 ekXt9n1WGcYX for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE4F3A68DA for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8psaanq.blf.telekom.de (HELO S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.166]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2009 07:13:38 +0200
Received: from S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.13]) by S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:13:38 +0200
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:13:37 +0200
Message-ID: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD40498D2CA@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <1246894612.3747.17.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
Thread-Index: Acn+T6ZY4XK8mGxETjyJ6VOaKTzT4gAcRVfQ
References: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD40498CFB8@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de> <1246894612.3747.17.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com>
From: R.Jesske@telekom.de
To: dworley@nortel.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2009 05:13:38.0923 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFDA43B0:01C9FEC1]
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
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: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:17:26 -0000

Hi Dale,
Within the SIPPING group I had already discussions on that issue.
The assumption was that the use of the Reason Header within Responses is conditionally allowed. 

The RFC 3326 says:
   Initially, the Reason header field defined here appears to be most
   useful for BYE and CANCEL requests, but 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.


So we need a draft where it is stated that a reason header can be included within the SIP Response. That was also the recommendation of that discussion. That is why I wrote a draft.
Nevertheless some standards already include this behaviour like the ITU-T Q.1912.5 specification.
Also 3GPP needs the reason header within Responses.

Now due to the fact that the draft is expired and with the reorganisation of SIP and SIPPING the questioned appeared where such draft would like to fit best.
 SIPCORE, DISPATCH or BLISS.

 
Best Regards,

Roland  

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dale Worley [mailto:dworley@nortel.com] 
Gesendet: Montag, 6. Juli 2009 17:37
An: Jesske, Roland
Cc: DISPATCH
Betreff: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 13:50 +0200, R.Jesske@telekom.de wrote:
> Dear all, 
> After getting no response to my question from the dispatch. I assume
> that there is no interest on this draft within dispatch.
> 
> So now I would like to ask the people from SIPCORE and BILSS where do
> they see the work.
> 
> The below mentioned draft describes the use of the Reason Header
> within Resoponses for interoperability with the existing PSTN/ISDN
> networks.

Is the Abstract right?  As far as I can tell (by reading section 2), the
Abstract doesn't describe the draft at all.  That might be a reason that
you haven't gotten any response -- the Abstract "proposes the use of the
Reason header field in SIP responses", but that is something that is
already defined and allowed.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email