Re: [Sip] RFC 3261 supported header in 1xx responses

Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com> Mon, 21 November 2005 15:00 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EeD9Y-0000kd-DS; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:00:20 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EeD9W-0000kV-LJ for sip@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:00:18 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05860 for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:59:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EeDRz-0005R1-2W for sip@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:19:24 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2005 07:00:08 -0800
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,356,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="15678816:sNHT21428826"
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jALF06ln012739; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:00:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:00:05 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([10.86.242.115]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:00:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4381E0F3.9050601@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:00:03 -0500
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Arunachalam Venkatraman (arunvenk)" <arunvenk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] RFC 3261 supported header in 1xx responses
References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EBCA41C8@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EBCA41C8@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2005 15:00:04.0566 (UTC) FILETIME=[41344F60:01C5EEAC]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: sip-ietf <sip@ietf.org>, Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

If a proxy genreates the 1xx itself, it is effectively acting as a UAS, 
in which case insertion of Supported is fine. This won't confuse a UAC 
since any 1xx generated by the proxy itself will have different tags 
from a 2xx or other responses generated by the actual UA, and thus 
represent a different (early) dialog.

A proxy cannot insert or modify a Supported header in a response that 
passes by it (i.e., one for which it is proxying).

-Jonathan R.

Arunachalam Venkatraman (arunvenk) wrote:

> Can a proxy add Supported? Is this disallowed?
> If proxy may do so, the Supported cannot be interpreted as UAS
> capabilities, even if the 1xx is reliable (consider INVITE with
> Require:100rel).
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen)
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 5:39 PM
> To: Brett Tate
> Cc: sip-ietf
> Subject: Re: [Sip] RFC 3261 supported header in 1xx responses
> 
> It makes sense to include them in a dialog forming response. A normal
> 1xx is not dialog forming. My suspicion (though I didn't check if this
> was true) is that it went away when 100rel moved out of 3261. It can't
> hurt to send them, of course, but it would be ignored unless its
> reliable.
> 
> -Jonathan R.
> 
> Brett Tate wrote:
> 
> 
>>Within early versions of draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis, the Supported 
>>header could be expected within 1xx responses.  However within
>>draft-ietf-sip-rfc2543bis-06 it was removed and remains so within RFC
> 
> 3261.
> 
>>Is there a reason why it is undesirable to indicate supported 
>>extensions within a 1xx?  Or was it just an oversight when changing 
>>the "Summary of header fields" table to indicate 2xx instead of all
> 
> responses?
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>>This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use 
>>sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use 
>>sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
jdrosen@cisco.com                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip