On the Warning header... Values 300-379 are reserved for SDP-related stuff.
Values 380-389 are unassiged (but there is no text on it). Values 390-398 are unassigned (but don't fall into the SDP related stuff. 399 means Miscellaneous and the text can be provided to the user. It further says that Automata MUST NOT take action based on this. Rohan, are you advocating using 399, or defining a new code from the 390-398 space? > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Hawrylyshen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Alan Hawrylyshen > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 08:27 > To: Kyzivat Paul; Mahy Rohan > Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); IETF SIP List; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-05: 480 vs. 418 > > > On 27-Jul-2007, at 10:06 , Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > > I understand that if the user entered a sips URI then it > should be the > > user that must decide to downgrade. But if the user didn't know > > whether to use sip or sips in the first place, and the UA > decides to > > try sips first then I see no problem in the UA having a policy that > > causes it to downgrade. > > I was under the impression (based on meeting discussion) that : > 1 - the downgrade was undesirable because it reveals > (possibly) information about the targeted party in the clear, and; > 2 - The 480 with a Warning header was an option to provide > automata- friendly indication of the failure reason. > > Alan Hawrylyshen > > a l a n a t p o l y p h a s e d o t c a > > > _______________________________________________ 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
