Re: [Sipping] Method for URI-List servers to refuse the handling of a URI-List
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Thu, 02 November 2006 06:22 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfVyW-0000Kb-V2; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:22:52 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfVyV-0000KV-8q for sipping@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:22:51 -0500
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfVyO-0008On-G1 for sipping@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:22:51 -0500
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 920D54F4; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 07:22:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 07:22:35 +0100
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 07:22:34 +0100
Received: from [131.160.126.125] (rvi2-126-125.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.126.125]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37042370; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:22:34 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <45498EAA.4000308@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:22:34 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Method for URI-List servers to refuse the handling of a URI-List
References: <44A9009E.3070906@ericsson.com> <45491BAF.5000703@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <45491BAF.5000703@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2006 06:22:35.0043 (UTC) FILETIME=[492C9730:01C6FE47]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d
Cc: sipping@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Jonathan, in addition to the response code you refer to, the draft defines a way to inform the client about which entries in the URI-list the server did not like, because those entries were lists themselves, and provide the individual members of those lists. For example, a server receives the following URI-list in a request: Bob@example.com Bob-friends@server2.example.com The second URI in the list is a URI-list that needs to be "exploded" at a different server. But our server cannot know that just by looking at the URI. It sends a request to each of the URIs and gets an error response (the one defined in the draft) and a list with the individual members of Bob-friends@server2.example.com. The original server then sends requests to those URIs. This is basically an OMA dependency for PoC. The server receiving the original request is the controlling PoC server of an ad-hoc PoC session, which is created by a request that contains URIs that represent PoC sessions at a different PoC server. Any given PoC session can only have a single controlling PoC server. So, the debate here is whether this is general enough to be a regular header field or whether a P-header using an existing error code is more appropriate. I believe that the ability to point out which URIs in a URI-list caused a server to refuse the request is general enough and, thus, a regular header field is the way to go. However, OMA will most likely be equally happy if we add the "P-" prefix to such header. Cheers, Gonzalo Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > I don't really understand the motivation for this draft. There are > countless reasons why a server might not want to process a request. Why > is it important in this case to communicate the reason back to the UA? > Why not just send a 400 and be done with it? Is it commonly expected > that a server will refuse to fan out a request? What remediation to you > expect the client to take? > > -Jonathan R. > > Jani Hautakorpi (JO/LMF) wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We have written a draft describing a method for URI-list servers to >> refuse the handling of a URI-List. You can find the draft from: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hautakorpi-sipping-uri-list-handling-refused-00.txt >> >> >> The motivation for writing this draft is that currently URI-List >> servers don't have any explicit method for denying the handling of >> incoming >> request. This draft describes just that in a form of a new response >> code, 495 (URI-List Handling Refused). >> >> I would be very interested in hearing any comments/ideas/thoughts that >> you might have about this draft. So, please send your input to me >> (jani.hautakorpi@ericsson.com). >> >> > _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
- [Sipping] Method for URI-List servers to refuse t… Jani Hautakorpi (JO/LMF)
- Re: [Sipping] Method for URI-List servers to refu… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [Sipping] Method for URI-List servers to refu… Gonzalo Camarillo