Re: [Stox] core: response code mappings

[Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:20 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Hi Olle, that is helpful feedback.
> 
> On 8/17/13 1:28 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>> 
>> 17 aug 2013 kl. 04:28 skrev Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>:
>> 
>>> The SIP Parameters Registry has a list of SIP response codes:
>>> 
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/sip-parameters.xml#sip-parameters-7
>>> 
>>> A number of those are not specified in RFC 3261. Thus the question
>>> arises: for which codes do we need to define mappings? We could define
>>> mappings for all of them, but I wonder if that's advisable. Some of the
>>> additional codes are specified in RFCs that update RFC 3261 (e.g., code
>>> 440 from RFC 5393), whereas other codes are specified in "non-core" RFCs
>>> that don't update RFC 3261 (e.g., code 470 from RFC 5360). Would it
>>> perhaps make sense to map the "core" codes and not the "non-core" codes?
>> 
>> I don't really have any good answer. Can just look into the Asterisk code and see
>> that we've implemented a selection... :-)
>> 
>> The important part is to have a generic mapping for 2xx, 3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx codes,
>> so that if a gateway gets an unknown code, it knows how to map it to something. In SIP,
>> an unknown 4xx code is the same as 400 etc.
> 
> True. I think we can provide that information in the stox-core spec
> (e.g., in XMPP <bad-request/> is like a default 400). That way, if an
> entity encounters a response code that it doesn't understand, at least
> it can map it appropriately.
> 

+1

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects