Re: [sipcore] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-04.txt> (A SIP Response Code for Unwanted Calls) to Proposed Standard

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 3/20/17 10:23 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Denis Ovsienko <[e-mail]> writes:
>> If you mind people that take the Bible and its teachings seriously, it
>> will be easy for them to see it as a personal insult if their phone
>> receives and displays the message as it is proposed, as well as if
>> their phone sends such a message on their behalf. This is not specific
>> to SIP, the same conflict may be caused by a snail mail post, except
>> in real-time communications people have less time to think and step
>> back from the situation.
>
> That seems to be a valid consideration to me:  Embedding
> culturally/religiously/politically symbolic identifiers in a protocol in
> a way that end users will at least occasionally see is probably not a
> good idea.  It's clear even to me that a flippant reference to the
> Prophet is asking for trouble, and it seems like we should take
> references to the Number of the Beast seriously, given its long history
> as a politically powerful symbol.

I don't find it reasonable to cater to superstitious beliefs. (E.g. 
omitting the 13th floor from a building.)

OTOH, I will agree that the choice of 666 as the response code here was 
not incidental - it clearly was chosen with that "Number of the Beast" 
connotation in mind. In that sense the choice was gratuitous.

The requirement is that the number be of the form 6nn, and that it be 
one that has not already been assigned a meaning within the protocol. 
The process for assigning specific values for new response codes is ad hoc:

- sometimes the next unassigned value is assigned,
- sometimes sub-ranges are reserved for related values,
- sometimes a value is assigned based on a similar value
   in another category. (E.g. 406 and 606).

None of these would lead to 666 being an obvious choice in this case.

Hence, I would not object to choosing a different value based on such 
criteria.

BUT, should there ever be a need to assign another value in the 6nn 
range, and there is some rational reason (other than to explicitly 
reference the Number of the Beast), then I would strenuously object to 
objections based on this connotation of that particular value.

	Sincerely,
	Paul Kyzivat