I don't agree at all with this 380 idea. To me, 380 basically redirects the request to a resource described in a message body instead of (or perhaps in addition to) in the Contact header. And, it's not standardized yet.
I do not see anything in the description of 380 (section 21.3.5/RFC 3261) that implies that the Calling user should be consulted. Furthermore, RFC 3261 does state that for 3XX response that redirects from SIPS to SIP, you should consult the Calling party (see 8.1.3.4). To top it off, since 380 is not defined today, it will be treated as a 300 by all existing UAs. So it really does not solve anything. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:32 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] sips if possible, sip if not. - a question > on sip-sips-03 draft > > From: "Francois Audet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 416 is ok for "SIPS is not OK, but SIP will work". > > It is NOT ok for "SIP is not OK, but SIPS will works". For > that, you can > use 302 or 301. > > What I like about 380 is that it seems to be designed for > situations where the calling user should be consulted, as > opposed to 301/302, which implementations seem to take as > instructions for automatic redirection. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
