Re: [sip-clf] draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-05 Reason-Phrase

On Mar 15, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Peter Musgrave wrote:

> I think as a predefined option field Reason Phrase makes sense.
> 
> It may be worth thinking about other optional header fields people might want...Refer, History-Info, Session-ID - might become a bit of a long list. Would this be viewed as useful?

I had it as one of the discussion topics for Prague. I think we fundamentally need to decide what fields we want as Pre-defined Optional Fields IF that list a reasonable one. If we want to open it up (as Anders suggest) to ALL SIP fields, then this would likely require a different mechanism entirely.

Gonzalo

> 
> Peter (as individual)
> 
> On 2011-03-15, at 5:10 PM, Anders Nygren wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> The list of mandatory fields includes Status-Code but not Reason-Phrase.
>> Wouldn't it be useful to have Reason-Phrase also since RFC3261
>> 
>> 21.1.5 183 Session Progress
>> 
>>  The 183 (Session Progress) response is used to convey information
>>  about the progress of the call that is not otherwise classified.  The
>>  Reason-Phrase, header fields, or message body MAY be used to convey
>>  more details about the call progress.
>> 
>> 21.4.1 400 Bad Request
>> 
>>  The request could not be understood due to malformed syntax.  The
>>  Reason-Phrase SHOULD identify the syntax problem in more detail, for
>>  example, "Missing Call-ID header field".
>> 
>> So at times Reason-Phrase gives some additional information that can not be
>> obtained from just the Status-Code. Maybe as an optional field.
>> 
>> /Anders
>> _______________________________________________
>> sip-clf mailing list
>> sip-clf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> sip-clf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf