> -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 15:38 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); IETF SIP List > Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-05: 480 vs. 418 > > Francois, > > I am reasonably happy with this proposal, BUT I must point > out the following from RFC 3261: > "If the Request-URI indicates a resource at this proxy that does not > exist, the proxy MUST return a 404 (Not Found) response. > > If the target set remains empty after applying all of the > above, the > proxy MUST return an error response, which SHOULD be the 480 > (Temporarily Unavailable) response." > > Doesn't this fit into the first category, suggesting that 404 > would be appropriate? Or do we regard the existence of an AoR > as meaning that both SIP and SIPS resources exist, even if > one or other has no registered contacts?
Basically, 480 is the error code that is supposed to be used when the user is known to exist (i.e., the AOR is in the database), but he is not "logged-in" at present. So the presence of the AOR does mean that both the SIP and SIPS AOR exist, but they don't necessarily have a binding assigned to it at the time. Thus the 480. That's the feedback I got from others. _______________________________________________ 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
