> However to be honest we need to explicitly indicate that the
> problem was sips-to-sip so that the original UA can decide
> whether to retry. Thus I'd suggest a new 4xx code.
I'm fine with this.
Let me propose 418 (SIPS Not Allowed)
With the following description:
The server cannot process the request because the SIPS scheme is
not
allowed. The UAC SHOULD retry the request, this time, using a
SIP URI.
This response differs from 416 in that the server recognizes the
SIPS
URI, but it is not allowed (e.g., because the UAS registered
with
a SIP Contact header field).
(And the current text on proxies not recursing on this will apply)
(Note: existing implementations will treat it as 400, which is intended
behavior, i.e., it will not automatically re-attempt anything).
If you support this, or are against this, please voice your opinion. If
you don't
care that much, just don't say anything :^)
Now, the next logical quesiton is for sip-to-sips.
Currently, the text has this text about proxies that may decide to use
either 403 or 3XX to redirect to a SIPS URI. We have a similar problem
here
that some proxy in the middle may decide to recurse on it (which would
break
the last hop upgrade prohibition).
Do we need a 419 (SIPS Required) as well? Or are we happy with the
current text?
_______________________________________________
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
