From: Dean Willis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is there a requirement for some kind of new SIP response code which > says something like "no SIPS URI registered but there is a SIP one"?
You mean like a 302? Is a 302 allowed to offer a sip: URI as a contact for a sips: request-URI? 380 looks like it is intended to have this sort of effect, but its content has not been standardized: 21.3.5 380 Alternative Service The call was not successful, but alternative services are possible. The alternative services are described in the message body of the response. Formats for such bodies are not defined here, and may be the subject of future standardization. And 416 seems plausible: 8.1.3.5 Processing 4xx Responses If a 416 (Unsupported URI Scheme) response is received (Section 21.4.14), the Request-URI used a URI scheme not supported by the server. The client SHOULD retry the request, this time, using a SIP URI. But I can't tell if that last sentence is just a nit and should have read "... this time, using a SIP or SIPS URI." Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
