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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Sorry. I was to fast with my writing an sending. 
> What I meant to write was the 100. But I dont know any other 1xx beyond 18x and 199 that would fit. Or did I forgot one.
> 
> Or is it more the general avalibility for 1xx for future.

Enumerating which ones are meaningful isn't future proof.
Maybe this is a special case since there is a requirement to explicitly 
document which responses this header may appear in (why?),
but IMO it would be better not to second guess, and just allow them all.

My fallback from that would be all 18x and 199.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Best Regards
> 
> Roland 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 23:59
> An: Jesske, Roland
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Betreff: Re: AW: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> 
> 
> 
> [e-mail] wrote:
>> Hello Paul,
>> Thank you for your comment. I have the sam opinion. Due to the fact that 1xx is not done end to end
> 
> 1xx means 101-199, excluding 100. Only 100 is hop by hop. All the 1xx 
> are end to end.
> 
>> I have put the following sentence into the draft.
>>
>> The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to final responses
>>    3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx and 18x and 199 provisional responses
>>    [I-D.ietf-sipcore-199].
> 
> I'd prefer to see it just say 1xx.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
>> I hope that fits. 
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Roland
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Paul Kyzivat
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 22:58
>> An: Belling, Thomas (NSN - DE/Munich)
>> Cc: Paul While; [e-mail]; Jesske, Roland; ext Calme,James A (Jim)
>> Betreff: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
>>
>> I hate to see *anything* restricted to 183, rather than being applicable 
>> to all 1xx (or at least 18x) responses.
>>
>> Restricting to 183 implies that there is something *special* about 183.
>> I have seen that erroneous assumption in the wild too - and it is 
>> distressing. Anything you can do with 183 should also work with 180.
>>
>> 	Thanks,
>> 	Paul
>>
>> Belling, Thomas (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>>> Dear Roland,
>>>
>>> we discussed the interworking of ISUP ACM and CPG causes to SIP reasons headers in provisional responses in 3GPP CT3 yesterday.
>>> The conclusion was that we will only insert a reason header in a 183 provisional response.
>>>
>>> May I therefor suggest the following wording:
>>>
>>>         The Reason header is applicable to 3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx final responses
>>>         and 183 and 199 <reference> provisional responses.
>>>
>>> Further, it would be very helpfull for 3GPP if you could make the updated draft available very quickly as we have several dependent CRs in the 3GPP CTx meeting which is ongoing this week.
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------- 
>>> Dr. Thomas Belling 
>>> 3GPP Standardisation
>>> Nokia Siemens Networks 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Christer Holmberg
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:12 AM
>>> To: Paul Kyzivat; [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo
>>> Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> A small editorial change proposal:
>>>
>>> "The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to 3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx final responses and 18x and 199 <reference> provisional responsess."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
>>> Sent: 10. marraskuuta 2009 3:06
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo
>>> Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
>>>
>>> Roland,
>>>
>>> Thanks! That addresses my concern.
>>>
>>> 	Thanks,
>>> 	Paul
>>>
>>> [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> Hello Paul,
>>>> Thanks for that hint. I will change this too. 
>>>> Like:
>>>>
>>>>  The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to final responses
>>>>        3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx and in addition for 199 Responses as defined within
>>>>        ietf-sipcore-199.txt. Also the Reason header is
>>>>        applicable to provisional responses18x.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>> Roland
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 12:58
>>>> An: Jesske, Roland
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> Betreff: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> Hi Adam,
>>>>> Thank you for your mail. So I propose the following text then:
>>>>>
>>>>> The appearance of the Reason header is applicable to final responses
>>>>>       3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx and in addition for 199 Responses as defined within
>>>>>       ietf-sipcore-199.txt. Also the Reason header is
>>>>>       applicable to provisional responses18x which are generated by an
>>>>>       interworking gateway from ISUP to SIP.</t>
>>>> I think this is ok *except* if you are going to allow one kind of UAS 
>>>> to use Reason in a 18x response, then it should be allowed for *any* 
>>>> UAS to do so.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, suppose the gateway is replaced by a B2BUA to another 
>>>> sip environment, and the request eventually arrives as a gateway. Then 
>>>> a 18x response with a Reason header may arrive at the B2BUA and need 
>>>> to be replicated on the other side.
>>>>
>>>> 	Thanks,
>>>> 	Paul
>>>>
>>>>> Best Beagards
>>>>>
>>>>> Roland
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. November 2009 01:43
>>>>> An: Jesske, Roland
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> Betreff: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/6/09 7:28 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Christer and Francois,
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>    
>>>>> Given that RFC 3398 specifies the generation of a 301 in response to 
>>>>> a cause code of 22 under certain circumstances, it seems pretty 
>>>>> appropriate to allow the inclusion of a Q.850 cause code in 300-class 
>>>>> responses also. Or, at least, as appropriate as it would be to 
>>>>> include them in 4xx, 5xx, and 6xx responses.
>>>>>
>>>>> /a
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dispatch mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>