Re: [Stox] Review of -core

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Wed, 31 July 2013 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.net>
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 DD63221F9E2D for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.914
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.914 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.485, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87]
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 IMMNW2SP9QPO for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [IPv6:2a02:920:212e::205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4415B21F9A29 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::16:f490:4537:d80:d090] (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:f490:4537:d80:d090]) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5945B93C2A2; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:51:14 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8C01BBE1-BB90-4A2F-AB32-0252D06746EF"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <835410ED-B7B9-4DD9-8E58-8DF6C7AE4BB2@ag-projects.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:51:14 +0200
Message-Id: <2F1DACBC-4707-4FA5-ADE4-FFFD3709C870@edvina.net>
References: <B41C24DF-D89B-47B0-98D5-C176AC13EF81@ag-projects.com> <51F91E1D.7020606@stpeter.im> <835410ED-B7B9-4DD9-8E58-8DF6C7AE4BB2@ag-projects.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Subject: Re: [Stox] Review of -core
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:51:45 -0000

31 jul 2013 kl. 16:42 skrev Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com>om>:

>> 
>> 
>>> - Sec 5.1 maps the XMPP unexpected-request error to SIP code 491,
>>> which is very tied to the dialog semantics IMHO. I tried to find a
>>> better matching code but I couldn't though. Maybe a 500 with a
>>> reasonable Retry-After header value?
>> 
>> It seems to me that we'd want it to be a 4xx series error, but I don't
>> see a good one in RFC 3261.
> 
> Exactly my thought.
"unexpected-request error" seems more like a server error - or does it point to the actual request?

/O
> 
>> 
>>> - Sec 5.1 should me map the SIP outbound (RFC5626) error codes? Those
>>> are 430, and 439 which could be translated to bad-request.
>> 
>> Could you explain the scenarios where outbound-related error codes might
>> be used? Feel free to say "just read RFC 5626". :-)
>> 
> 
> A 430 may occur if the gateway sends a SIP INVITE to the target domain and the edge proxy which handles the INVITE gets a flow error from the authoritative proxy behind him. Forget about 439, that's for REGISTERs, sorry.
> 
> --
> Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
> AG Projects
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> stox mailing list
> stox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox

---
* Olle E Johansson - oej@edvina.net
* Cell phone +46 70 593 68 51, Office +46 8 96 40 20, Sweden