[dispatch] Proposal for a mew SIP 4xx Error code

Ranjit Avasarala <ranjitkav12@gmail.com> Tue, 29 October 2019 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ranjitkav12@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E513D12008D; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pusl-e_MaoMP; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F66412008C; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id p4so12053325wrm.8; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=S1+xVB98x5BC0QuIYkzAj7CE2XOLxn+K5ugZghjaS24=; b=Grz2b3aKqJkjFw0AXtivEg9hFV1+HlcMkLble6zVhktL5rvsnQiEyn3NIzBZ833Ftc dHgGbseiLJi9e2ayeyX95vySOCOikr1gwgJYv+RhxUJfw2wcN+D/lv/SyhsHsxeWhLu2 GaiZzG5tUONmBc/jXT1KjVelhQfVhlvdNNIuPYRsrvt6h/gnQFPXb30KrVhOrI0rXSgm QFaZvcNLcVFi0G8qoE7Glb5Neb5bObeTFtSctdMkPplrUPqYWxWZNY+tHEJ0VsiyvS8h NgXAHGSlMAPDlClvGBH/l9uo2k5wX436NCcx/YdPLAKUq2EosFIoDS+JIGxT6qlzsGG7 Oo2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=S1+xVB98x5BC0QuIYkzAj7CE2XOLxn+K5ugZghjaS24=; b=sjlcCIuZaTnyIQrUL3ZgYjLfxn60scvXCbuNjBx9QDekjWfvyj4oEMgvNwwbTkNzNH g7hCbV4g5qn+MvJsDK94+TX5z+hys1WqaAohqzPva13UGVKl6jdQdn4s9aqHlfEygGnQ JwcDieZk4ZqpXY8TYkX0dmTlODU2OdVfEcO5+vCftIPYvMv2B6iDtqlybuITLZMSe95N p8CGe3SbeZSoShxUL2eL6IbfmCCAloifOb5v10x4KNUvCOHsD+haHBY454ZPq42sGeSf n1rabKDQeW884nLhTUolwksIo2nGp7JWKpmGQ06cMuA3wLJr+orvVeqG5trWrYdDVE5u jzeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU44f2cNQDgsCcoiGb/AxHMse0Lhpa6QsfCmmpk07aHtrMXZUmu zJ9P8xUUDF454DgpTqhAT1z7YjfZY96SsfEzTkrzgQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyddVieEFpd8k8pBCj/JY0Zvziveaco4mAgA5iLQlL021qJ6I3cTCg8OVFTMjY7qwwv6VpKmK2JCwq3T//+iLY=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:54c7:: with SMTP id x7mr16789417wrv.99.1572321970582; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ranjit Avasarala <ranjitkav12@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:05:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFXT-ptE=1ZfpqsvfXXsnsRwEe7GB=M1C-0wdKT5p1qFnbFJeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: sipcore@ietf.org, dispatch@ietf.org, Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008779c5059604bc02"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/NBN3sY0yz7BNlNyEM6wxNu93Kxs>
Subject: [dispatch] Proposal for a mew SIP 4xx Error code
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 29 Oct 2019 04:06:14 -0000

Hello all

Many times I experienced scenarios where SIP requests (e.g. INVITE, PUBLISH
or PRACK or any other) have either invalid parameters in the header or a
particular header is missing in the request or the header value is
incomplete.  Some e.gs are

   - SIP Route header in INVITE contains additional "lr" parameter.
   Ideally, "lr" parameter needs to be associated with a particular route -
   i.e. sip URI
   - the Accept header is missing in SIP PUBLISH
   - the Allow header misses UPDATE method
   - .....  many more

Currently, in all the above cases the SIP Proxy server that receives the
request, responds with a 400 Bad Request.
Though 400 Bad Request is acceptable given that there is some issue in the
SIP request, a more detailed error would be more useful - as sometimes
interpreting 400 Bad Request is harder
E.g.
a  4xx Invalid header/parameter may be more appropriate with reason
E.g. if there is additional "lr" parameter in SIP INVITE, then the proxy
can return a 4xx Invalid Header/parameter with Reason:  SIP code=4xx;
Text="Invalid lr parameter in Route header"

Let me know your thoughts on if this proposal can be taken forward as an
Internet draft.

Thank you
Ranjit