Re: [Sip-implementors] Wrong SIP scheme and/or URI transport param

2011-06-09 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
2011/6/9 Paul Kyzivat : > For an unsupported/unrecognized transport, like sctp, 501 might be a > reasonable choice. It would be a good alternative usage of 501, I agree. > It would be much better than 500 for that case. 500 could > be used if its a *server* problem that you can't find anything

Re: [Sip-implementors] Wrong SIP scheme and/or URI transport param

2011-06-09 Thread Paul Kyzivat
On 6/9/2011 4:08 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2011/6/9 Paul Kyzivat: >> 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: >>> >>

Re: [Sip-implementors] Wrong SIP scheme and/or URI transport param

2011-06-09 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
2011/6/9 Paul Kyzivat : > 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 d

Re: [Sip-implementors] Wrong SIP scheme and/or URI transport param

2011-06-08 Thread Paul Kyzivat
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 l

Re: [Sip-implementors] Wrong SIP scheme and/or URI transport param

2011-06-08 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
2011/6/8 Paul Kyzivat : > 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 URI case. > The

Re: [Sip-implementors] Wrong SIP scheme and/or URI transport param

2011-06-08 Thread Paul Kyzivat
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

[Sip-implementors] Wrong SIP scheme and/or URI transport param

2011-06-08 Thread Iñaki Baz Castillo
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 si