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

Yes, I think so. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 23:16
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); R.Jesske@telekom.de; 
> Gonzalo Camarillo
> Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
> 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: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francois Audet
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:34 PM
> To: R.Jesske@telekom.de; Gonzalo Camarillo
> Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
> 
> and explain why 3XX, 2XX and 1XX don't make sense. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: R.Jesske@telekom.de [mailto:R.Jesske@telekom.de]
> > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 22:03
> > To: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> > Cc: Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30); dispatch@ietf.org
> > 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: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
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 