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

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Sun, 07 November 2010 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
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 22C343A6961 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 19:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.701, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 eAPuZJi5mX6q for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 19:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ETMail2.acmepacket.com (unknown [216.41.24.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCB23A6976 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 19:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by ETMail2.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 22:09:54 -0400
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 22:09:51 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 22:09:47 -0400
Thread-Topic: [sipcore] H-I in 100 response (was REMINDER: Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis)
Thread-Index: Act+INwj3o7y4DxNR+a1dTFTP/D9Og==
Message-ID: <5C04F446-3A93-471C-B0AB-37CD57543BB9@acmepacket.com>
References: <4C69ADA8.1010802@nostrum.com> <4C753AAA.3030407@nostrum.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA01C4874C5F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <AANLkTi=Sz5ddsWVmta5N_T8JHhrSytzALQDw=kzLcQAV@mail.gmail.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA023554638D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <AANLkTikxiK2S0oQ6Q7=JkwxYNjxK3O7BBrx+sWUQ5vOB@mail.gmail.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA023554681D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4CD08E7A.1020503@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CD08E7A.1020503@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAUA=
Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 02:09:41 -0000

On Nov 2, 2010, at 6:19 PM, 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.

Totally, 100%, absolutely agree with Paul.  100's are processed at a lower layer of the SIP stack, and are hop-by-hop anyway making them useless for H-I.

-hadriel