Re: [sipcore] New draft extending Reason header

<> Wed, 20 October 2010 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117243A682F for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.345, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdV31Zl9E1Uh for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8AA73A6827 for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E7E878B8004; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:04:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07858B8014; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:04:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:03:48 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:03:48 +0200
Message-ID: <B11765B89737A7498AF63EA84EC9F5770A76EA@ftrdmel1>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] New draft extending Reason header
Thread-Index: ActrDqFed2GxkeNBTzCdoDr59q6yRQEZkblA
References: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0CEAEED1@ftrdmel1> <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2010 15:03:48.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[000924A0:01CB7068]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] New draft extending Reason 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, 20 Oct 2010 15:02:25 -0000

Hi Mary,

The need you describe is to add a Reason header without (actually "before") receiving the explicit SIP response (so, the status code) from the UA.
This need is not exactly the same that the one I intend to address but the common point is to use the Reason header without receiving an explicit SIP response. 
We could, may be, find a way to address both needs but I don't know how. Let's think about it...


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Mary Barnes [] 
Envoyé : mercredi 13 octobre 2010 21:41
Objet : Re: [sipcore] New draft extending Reason header

Hi Marianne,

I haven't reviewed the draft in detail, however, I also had the same thought with regards to the usefulness of these Reasons for History-Info when I saw the draft earlier today.  I think we might also be able to use this for the parallel forking issue ( #20 ) in that we could add these reasons to the hi-entries to which the request didn't terminate (i.e., the legs that are Canceled after the 200ok is sent for the request that successfully terminated) rather than leaving the entries with no Reason and having it be inferred.

I will review the draft in detail later (once I finish all these 4244bis changes).


On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:06 PM,  <> wrote:
> Hi,
> We've submitted a draft, which extends the Reason header, allowing 
> proxies to indicate an application-specific reason in the SIP message.
> The draft can be found at:
> on
> -00.txt
> We think that it would be usefull to have this kind of 
> application-specific reasons especially in the History-Info header 
> when a call has been retargeted by an Application.
> We would like to get some feedback on the proposed I-D and a 
> confirmation of interest from the IETF community (SIPCORE).
> Best Regards,
> Marianne Mohali
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list