IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<R.Jesske@telekom.de> Fri, 17 July 2009 05:08 UTC

Return-Path: <R.Jesske@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE0F3A6A24 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.688, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b3M5C-V82B90 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1768D3A6D4A for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP; 17 Jul 2009 07:08:43 +0200
Received: from S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.13]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:08:43 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:08:42 +0200
Message-ID: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD404A9B6A7@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <1247764118.4085.24.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
Thread-Index: AcoGOBNLYYxzk7cRQFCJwxePkwQePQAY9gnA
References: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD40498CFB8@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de> <1246894612.3747.17.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD40498D2CA@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de> <1247255492.3757.40.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD404A14E83@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1F050471@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <1247764118.4085.24.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com>
From: R.Jesske@telekom.de
To: dworley@nortel.com, audet@nortel.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2009 05:08:43.0388 (UTC) FILETIME=[A7D4B3C0:01CA069C]
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-04
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:08:19 -0000

Hi Dale,
You are right. The Q.850 causes will be used within ITU-T Q.1912.5 for interworking SIP-ISUP and SIP-I.
Within ETSI ES 383 001 for interworking SIP-ISUP and SIP-I.
Within 3GPP TS 29.163 also interworking SIP with ISUP but there it is referred to the regarding draft we are discussing.

Also it is widely deployed also within our network.

But nevertheless within 3GPP meetings I have got requests to progress the ietf draft because people thinks that this is the way to ratify the use of reason within responses.

Best regards

Roland

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Dale Worley [mailto:dworley@nortel.com] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009 19:09
An: Francois Audet
Cc: Jesske, Roland; dispatch@ietf.org
Betreff: 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email