Re: [sipcore] #7: Request timeouts are 408, NOT 487 status codes

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Yep.  A third good catch.  I'll fix this as well.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:27 PM, sipcore issue tracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> #7: Request timeouts are 408, NOT 487 status codes
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  hkaplan@…               |       Owner:
>     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:  milestone1
> Component:  rfc4244bis              |     Version:  2.0
>  Severity:  In WG Last Call         |    Keywords:
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>  Section 6.3.3 says:
>    If a request has timed out (instead of being explicitly rejected), it
>    SHOULD be treated as if a 487 "Request Terminated" error response
>    code was received.
>
>  Using 487 for this is also mentioned in section 5.1.2.
>
>  Why?  That is not what SIP does.  A request timeout is a 408.  A 487 is
>  used for an explicit INVITE early termination (i.e., through a CANCEL),
>  although rfc3261 also says to use it if an INVITE's Expire header value's
>  time fires (section 13.3.1 of 3261), but that's not a "request timeout"
>  (and really 3261 contradicts itself for using 487 for Expires too, in
>  section 21.5.5).
>
>  Change this to 408, in sections 5.1.2 and 6.3.3.
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/7>
> sipcore <http://tools.ietf.org/sipcore/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>