Re: [sipcore] Alert-Info header field in non-100 1xx responses

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

thanks for your (individual) opinion on the topic. With respect to the
process, I am well aware of the issue. That is why, first, I want to
know whether or not somebody has problems with this change. Once we
agree on a technical solution, we will easily take care of the
process-related issue. The main thing here is to make sure that this
proposal is reviewed by the relevant people in both SIPCORE and SALUD.

Thanks,

Gonalo

On 03/08/2010 4:49 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Gonzalo,
> 
> Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> RFC 3261 only allows Alert-Info header fields in 180 responses. The
>> SALUD WG would like to be able to insert this header field in any
>> non-100 1xx response. Formally, this change would be an update to RFC
>> 3261. So, we would like to get feedback from the SIPCORE WG on whether
>> or not such a change would be OK.
> 
> [as an individual] I think this is perfectly reasonable.
> 
> [as co-chair] There is the procedural issue of whether such a change 
> must be done by SIPCORE. The following is from the SIPCORE charter:
> 
> "Extensions to SIP that add new functionality that
> would not be required of all implementations will be done outside of
> this WG."
> 
> Since the processing of Alert-Info is always optional according to 3261, 
> defining a specific behavior for certain URNs is clearly an extension. 
> And making the header allowable in additional responses also seems to be 
> an extension.
> 
> So I'm ok with this.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul