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

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

Yep, sounds good. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:50
> To: [e-mail]; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); 
> Gonzalo Camarillo
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> 
> Hi,
>  
> >I have added a sentence under section Overall Applicability:
> >
> >The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to final 
> responses 4xx, 5xx and 6xx and in addition for 199 Responses.
> >
> >Is this proper enough? Or do you have more in mind?
> 
> I am ok with the proposed with the text. Maybe you should say 
> "for provisional 199 responses". 
> 
> I guess it would be good to add a reference to the 199 spec also.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Francois Audet [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. August 2009 17:55
> An: Christer Holmberg; Jesske, Roland; Gonzalo Camarillo
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Betreff: RE: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> 
> Yes, I think so.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 23:16
> > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); [e-mail]; Gonzalo 
> > Camarillo
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> >
> >
> > Hi Francois,
> >
> > As you mentioned earlier, it could make sense to allow it in 199.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Francois Audet
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:34 PM
> > To: [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> >
> > and explain why 3XX, 2XX and 1XX don't make sense.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 22:03
> > > To: [e-mail]; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> > > Cc: Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30); [e-mail]
> > > 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:[e-mail]]
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 20. Juli 2009 11:41
> > > An: Francois Audet
> > > Cc: Dale Worley; [e-mail]; 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: [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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > dispatch mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dispatch mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >
> 
>