Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than an escaped header

Christer Holmberg <> Wed, 24 November 2010 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D254328C13A for <>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:26:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.233
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.234, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yFxDAfT9UF0l for <>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:26:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CF328C136 for <>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:26:23 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b8cae0000016b1-38-4ced752a2f08
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 62.D1.05809.A257DEC4; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:27:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:27:20 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>, Mary Barnes <>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:27:19 +0100
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than an escaped header
Thread-Index: AcuLa3pzhdzxtFR3ROW5F0D6sgmHdAAqaG6x
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Reason as a parameter rather than an escaped header
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:26:29 -0000


>> I would suggest that the best way forward is that we keep the current
>> text as is and note that any additional Reason headers that are defined
>> in the future MUST be interpreted in the same manner.  However, I do NOT
>> think we should hold up 4244bis until we get full agreement on adding
>> new Reason header values for applications as I firmly believe it is
>> orthogonal - it can work based upon the current normative approach and
>> interpretation of the Reason in the hi-entries.  We can debate till the
>> end of time (or the end of SIPCORE WG as we did with other broken things
>> in SIP) that this wasn't the right approach, but it is what it is and I
>> think it's time to move forward.
>I agree that 4244bis should not be held up because of the new reason
>values draft(s?).
>At this point I would just like some clarity whether the *way* reasons
>are used in the examples in
>draft-mohali-sipcore-reason-extension-application-00 - reasons without
>responses - is thought to be *valid* in the context of 4244bis. If the
>answer is NO, then I'll shut up, and let Marianne or somebody else from
>3gpp complain if they think it should be.
>If the answer is YES - that usage is considered valid according to
>4244bis, then I still want to know why, and perhaps see some additional
>text to make it clear.

I think we should ask ourselves: assuming we allowed to do what Marianne is proposing, would anything break?

Does anyone really care whether a H-I entry was inserted based on a "real" or "virtual" response? Aren't people more interested in the actual reason value?