RE: [Sipping] Re: draft-elwell-sipping-service-retargeting-00.txt

[Dean Willis <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 21:25 -0500, Mary Barnes wrote:

> I still think there's fundamental confusion over how H-I works - that
> 302 isn't included in the H-I entry until a new request is built. Thus,
> you could only correlate the 302 response (captured as a Reason in the
> H-I entry) with a 486 IF you also had a separate Reason header in the
> response.  This is because the entity that sends the 302 response isn't
> the one that builds the H-I entry capturing that 302 response; the H-I
> entry is added by the recipient of the 302 response (i.e. the entity
> that's actually doing the retargeting). This point relates to why John's
> earlier proprosal was suggesting to allow the Reason header in responses
> and to extend the values in the Reason header to support this service
> related information.  The History-Info draft was updated around that
> time to take into account the possibility of getting a Reason header in
> a response (and this was discussed on the mailing list and in the issue
> discussions at the SIP WG meetings).   We did interpret the text in RFC
> 3326 (at that time) to mean that it was possible (i.e. it's certainly
> not specifically dis-allowed) to have a Reason header in a response:
> "  Note that the Reason header field is usually not needed in responses
>    because the status code and the reason phrase already provide
>    sufficient information."


yes, that's exactly my confusion point. History-Info can be included in
that 302 response, according to the way I read H-I. Right? After all,
the draft explicity says we can have H-I in any response, I think.

Including a Reason header field inside a History-Info header field that
is inside a response is NOT the same thing, imho, as including a Reason
header field in a response (which I think is probably a good idea
anyhow, but that's a separate issue).

Let's say Node B is retargeting a request by generating a 302 response
to that request. So it makes perfect sense to me for Node B, which is
issuing a 302 "for a reason" to include a History-Info describing the
retargeting operation it believes it is effecting, and including the
"reason" for that retargeting.

If this is just all wrong (and it may very well be), then I just wasn't
able to find in H-I where it SAYS this is wrong. Maybe I just missed it.
Please point . . . 

After all, if I'm confused, then it's reasonable to think that other
clueless readers are confused too (I'm a good test case for clueless).

--
dean


_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP