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

Hi,

yes, it is normal that the draft has focused on requirements and use 
cases so far. Once (or if) folks agree with those, we have to make sure 
that the normative behavior we define is correct and covers most typical 
cases.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

R.Jesske@telekom.de wrote:
> 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:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] 
> Gesendet: Montag, 20. Juli 2009 11:41
> An: Francois Audet
> Cc: Dale Worley; dispatch@ietf.org; 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: R.Jesske@telekom.de; dispatch@ietf.org
>>> 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
>> dispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
> 