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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

[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
>