Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205?

Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com> Mon, 16 September 2013 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC3B11E82C3 for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 cyzwNleU7JwC for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811CC11E82EB for <straw@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r8GG4aXx018606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:37 GMT
Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8GG4Ztl024654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:36 GMT
Received: from abhmt114.oracle.com (abhmt114.oracle.com [141.146.116.66]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8GG4Z2E002858; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:04:35 GMT
Received: from [10.1.21.34] (/10.5.21.34) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:04:34 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CBCB268C-78EF-4F4B-8E3D-35E403967608"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:04:33 -0400
Message-Id: <347FD7AE-6B8C-469E-9EFB-044790012BB1@oracle.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49B4C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]
Cc: "straw@ietf.org" <straw@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [straw] straw-sip-traceroute: 205?
X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" <straw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw>
List-Post: <mailto:straw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:08:35 -0000

The 205 response code by itself won't be enough - it's too likely to get mapped to a 200 before reaching the UAC.  The Reason header might be enough by itself.  The rationale for doing the 205 was discussed in the original thread back in July.   See here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00147.html

-hadriel


On Sep 9, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> (As co-chair)
>  
> Hi,
>  
> Hadriel has submitted the following draft in DISPATCH:
>  
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaplan-dispatch-sip-205-response-00.txt
>  
> The draft defines a new SIP response code, 205, and Hadriel has also suggested the response code to be used in the STRAW trace-route delivery:
>  
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-00
>  
>  
> The 205 draft has not been adopted yet, but the chairs would still like to ask the STRAW community whether it thinks that we can make a working assumption decision that we will use the 205 mechanism (assuming it gets done) in the trace-route delivery, or whether we should use some other mechanism.
>  
> If we choose 205, the trace-route draft will obviously have a dependency on the 205 draft, and we’ll have to wait for it to get done.
>  
> And, as we don’t know whether 205 will ever become an RFC, or how it will eventually look like, we can always re-visit any decision we make.
>  
> So, the question to the community is:
>  
> Do you think that:
> a)      We shall base the trace-route delivery on using the SIP 205 response.
> b)      We shall base the trace-route delivery on another mechanism - AND I am also elaborating on how such mechanism would look like.
> c)      I have read all the relevant drafts, and the e-mail discussions, but I still think it is too early to make a working assumption, even if it later can be re-visited, at this point - AND I am also elaborating on why I think so.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Christer & Victor
>  
> (STRAW Chairs)
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> straw mailing list
> straw@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw