Re: [sipcore] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 06:59 AM 3/29/2011, Robert Sparks wrote:
>Thanks for the reminder - I reread the text and talked with Jon. I 
>think the only thing that needs to change
>is the actual error code. 503 is to extreme - it would cut off all 
>SIP traffic from the peer receiving the response,
>not just traffic related to this request.

yes - that would be bad.

>I think the right code in this context is 500 (which can also use 
>the Retry-After mechanism).
>
>More concisely, my suggestion is s/503/500/

got it

Thanks

James


>RjS
>
>On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:47 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
>
> > At 03:45 PM 3/9/2011, Robert Sparks wrote:
> >> There are a couple of larger and several small things to also 
> address in this document before requesting publication.
> >>
> >> The larger things:
> >>
> >> 3) I can't figure out what the paragraph in section 4.4 that 
> starts "Additionally, if a sip entity cannot..." and goes
> >> onto talk about 503's is trying to say. I think some surrounding 
> context must have been lost or not captured.
> >> Why would we be recommending sending a 503 here?
> >
> > pick on this one point, there was an error code for that 
> basically said "couldn't process the location you just sent me, but 
> it's ok to try again" *and* "couldn't process the location you just 
> sent me, don't try to resend it for a while". Jon didn't like the 
> idea of something that he feels duplicates the 503 with a retry 
> after header field. He was on a mission to reduce the number of 
> geolocation-error codes, and these two go whacked. That's where 
> this text comes from. I'll get with him about writing this section 
> better - or do you have an alternate plan we should pursue?
> >
> > James