2011/6/8 akib sayyed via LinkedIn mem...@linkedin.com:
akib sayyed requested to add you as a connection on LinkedIn:
akib, STOP please! don't try to add
sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu to your Linkedin friends.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
i...@aliax.net
Hi, RFC 3261 says:
21.4.14 416 Unsupported URI Scheme
The server cannot process the request because the scheme of the URI
in the Request-URI is unknown to the server
But imagine these requests arriving to a proxy which just can talk SIP
over UDP/TCP (and TLS over TCP):
a) INVITE
These are indeed fuzzy cases.
IMO, I would treat problems with a URI in a topmost Route header the
same as a problem with the R-URI when there is no Route header.
(So I think 416 is appropriate for case (d).)
The others don't seem to fit 416 or anything else very well.
So when in doubt, go with
2011/6/8 Paul Kyzivat pkyzi...@cisco.com:
IMO, I would treat problems with a URI in a topmost Route header the
same as a problem with the R-URI when there is no Route header.
(So I think 416 is appropriate for case (d).)
I think the same. IMHO 416 should not be specified just for the
Request
On 6/8/2011 3:50 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Some existing proxies reply some custom 4XX codes for these kind of
errors. I would like some specific and standarized 4XX response code,
something like:
467 Unsupported Transport
Go for it! Submit a draft. (Send it to the dispatch list.)
