Actually, 416 would achieve what you want.
302 would not be backward compatible because some proxy somewhere could
recurse on it, resulting in a downgrade.
If people prefer a 416, I can put that.
I do personaly prefer the 403, because I'd like to avoid any thing that
would cause a proxy to "automatically" recurse, thereby resulting
in a downgrade.
________________________________
From: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 16:20
To: [email protected]
Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
Subject: draft-ietf-sip-sips-04: 403 instead of last hop
exception
In section 4.2
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-sips-04.txt proposes
that a proxy should send 403 rather than apply the last hop exception.
Instead, I would propose that it would send a 302 with either
the registered Contact or the received request URI with a "sip:" scheme.
403 would be confusing, because the caller cannot distinguish between
this case and the callee refusing his call. Perhaps a new response code
(4xx Unsecure transport not allowed) would be better.
Perhaps a caller preference should be defined to request such
behavior, similar to "fork" and "no-fork" (RFC3841). Say "no-sips-sip"
Regards,
Jeroen
_______________________________________________
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
