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

["Francois Audet" <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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
> 
> 
>