[Sipping-tispan] AW: [Sipping] Reason header in Responses

Dean Thank you for your clarification.
OK now on track. So my action in the past to define such an approach was the correct way.
I don't know if we can start such a discussion, because within TISPAN we have some services that needs a Q.850 reason within a Response (at least for interoperability)

You can find my draft under:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jesske-sipping-etsi-ngn-reason-00.txt

Best Regards

Roland

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Dean Willis [mailto:dean.willis@softarmor.com] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Oktober 2005 22:10
> An: Jesske, Roland
> Cc: sipping@ietf.org; sipping-tispan@ietf.org
> Betreff: Re: [Sipping] Reason header in Responses
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 18, 2005, at 4:24 AM, Jesske, R wrote:
> 
> > Dear all,
> > Still the use of the Reason header confuses me.
> > With regard to the discussion of the retargeting draft the  
> > inclusion of a 486 in a 302 is discussed as possible.
> > But on the other side the inclusion of a Q.850 reason header in a  
> > response is not allowed.
> > Could I have some Guidance How I have to understand the following  
> > phrase written in RFC 3326 Reason Header:
> >
> >    Initially, the Reason header field defined here appears 
> to be most
> >    useful for BYE and CANCEL requests, but it can appear in any  
> > request
> >    within a dialog, in any CANCEL request and in any response whose
> >    status code explicitly allows the presence of this header field.
> >
> >    Note that the Reason header field is usually not needed in  
> > responses
> >    because the status code and the reason phrase already provide
> >    sufficient information.
> >
> > Does this mean that if I specify the use of SIP Reason in a  
> > response (e.G in a IETF RFC, ITU-T or ETSI Specification) it is  
> > allowed to use this now or do I need a special IETF draft to allow  
> > the use of Q.850 Reasons in responses?
> 
> I'm sorry, Roland, but use of Q.850 codes in SIP responses would be  
> "unreasonable" ;-), at least without an RFC that revises the 
> response  
> code to allow it to carry a Reason header. John submitted a draft  
> that proposed extending 302 to carry a Reason header, and we haven't  
> resolved on that approach. Even with such a draft, we'd also I  
> believe need additional RFCs defining use of Q.850 codes in Reason  
> headers, along with appropriate IANA actions.
> 
> --
> Dean
> 

_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
Sipping-tispan@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan