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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Brett Tate wrote:
> Although some people/documents might use 1xx when they really mean "101-199", rfc3261 section 7.2 indicates that 100 is included within 1xx.
> 
> "For this reason, any response with a status code between 100 and 199 is referred to as a "1xx response","

Damn! Sorry.

Ok. Then lets go for 101-199.

	Thanks,
	Paul

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:59 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>