Re: [sipcore] H-I in 100 response (was REMINDER: Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis)

Ian Elz <ian_elz@yahoo.co.uk> Wed, 03 November 2010 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ian_elz@yahoo.co.uk>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914783A68A3 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 02:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 pzCLa8L1F0zU for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 02:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm17.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com (nm17.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com [77.238.189.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B61C43A68AB for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 02:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [77.238.189.53] by nm17.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Nov 2010 09:50:34 -0000
Received: from [212.82.108.241] by tm6.bullet.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Nov 2010 09:50:34 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1006.mail.ird.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Nov 2010 09:50:34 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 819874.21611.bm@omp1006.mail.ird.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 2492 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Nov 2010 09:50:34 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1288777834; bh=HPCntt3G1DvFt2PPqGvcAAkS2ezEh6fnsCCdRD/1/Zc=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=0CLV5aWN4mKgPvUHeobu4tM3LxpbGiriFZ8UIzpWNSOJce50KY+I7pKb3SMdu6w6by1nRlIg4WP9725NYRKcAsVilPQd8yfIdAaq3MCal/TjAWu54BjZ2JjqqGk+Cpd+DNVvLNmDIGNwsHsd9kG6tYPoysSxEFsiuMr3BB+bqU4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LJTlCxnyey8EqujBvQkAVWY7NraUBZGR22oRJ5FHAZVgeNZ9qAde7zmYV+Do4RJtkLc1ly1ZrzjhiW/AQusYhFmJfq020b6St19mFVE5S8ECxolJ9V5kp4+uEKvD7TcbK7gjCj0r7sGRw2UX2xhsZcdmVkvUAJhr0mOVN4uLsl8=;
Message-ID: <595924.92151.qm@web29110.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: inM6fu4VM1kBvUEVSMKyh9_gQQ3AkhT4XhvlCR2lZHJFEei oz7Mlpxcn55wHNLoIkzLXUTRJYv_8bRa7SCy8bNkicqx8kIVmLi3sCGhbrpH iwcVJSv0A1YzU6qH3cEKqjJ3w.FIrAST2Uw8F_2SxYAbaINVlijywC8mslp3 Gtx95iXrgK26i7EcJgShAHEH5hhHzASt1dKQ2vw--
Received: from [80.231.29.20] by web29110.mail.ird.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:50:34 GMT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.284920
References: <mailman.597.1288775770.4822.sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:50:34 +0000 (GMT)
From: Ian Elz <ian_elz@yahoo.co.uk>
To: sipcore@ietf.org, john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com, mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com, pkyzivat@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <mailman.597.1288775770.4822.sipcore@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1710153091-1288777834=:92151"
Subject: Re: [sipcore] H-I in 100 response (was REMINDER: Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis)
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:50:33 -0000

02 November 2010 22:19:38 Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>On 11/2/2010 4:31 PM, Elwell, John wrote:
>> So the remaining issue from this thread concerns whether to mandate 
>>History-Info in a all provisional responses or just non-100 provisional 
>>responses (subject to presence of the option tag in the request). Given that 100 
>>tends to be generated differently from other provisional responses, and given 
>>the marginal use of H-I in 100 responses, I would prefer either to omit H-I from 
>>100 responses or use MAY. I don't have a strong opinion, but perhaps others have 
>>a view.

>Requiring (even permitting) H-I in 100 responses is a *terrible* idea.

>I don't see why you would need H-I in *any* provisional responses (with 
the possible exception of 199.)

(>Disclaimer - I have not read all the discussion on this subject.)

>    Thanks,
>    Paul

<snip>
 
I don't believe that you can stop H-I in all provisional responses. 

I don't think that H-I is useful in a 100 Trying response but it adds 
significant value to other 1xx responses. I believe that 3GPP have specified H-I 
in 181 Call is Being Forwarded responses as part of the CDIV service.

Subject to Privacy settings returning the H-I in the 181 provides valuable 
information to the caller.

Ian Elz

{I have been trying to follow all the threads relating to 4424bis but no longer 
being employed in telecoms means that I have limited time. I was going to review 
the 4424bis draft but then as there were lots of other commnets I have sat back 
and and lurked. Time to got back and hide again.}