Re: [Stox] core: response code mappings

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 8/19/13 2:02 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 8/16/13 10:28 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 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 know this is almost a non-answer, but...
> 
> The codes that are defined in other RFCs are there to support features
> that are introduced in those RFCs. If there is a mapping of that feature
> to XMPP, then there should be a mapping of the code.

That makes sense.

> If there is no mapping of the feature, then mapping the code is less
> important, but still perhaps useful in some cases. E.g., it could
> conceivably show up in a Reason code based on signaling that was never
> gatewayed to xmpp. But maybe a default mapping would be sufficient in
> those cases.

I suspect that the default mapping would be fine.

And in general, there might be more art than science here.

I have written some proposed text for this section, but it's fairly long
so my inclination is to submit a revised I-D and then folks can review
what I've written and post to the list with feedback.

Peter

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