IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Stox] core: response code mappings

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Sat, 17 August 2013 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675AF11E81E8 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3xeoffv2uk9n for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFDE11E81EC for <stox@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAA24414F7; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:31:20 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <520EDFBB.90503@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:28:11 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Stox] core: response code mappings
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <stox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stox>
List-Post: <mailto:stox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 02:28:21 -0000

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?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email