Alan Hawrylyshen wrote:
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;
Its only undesirable if the UAC had any expectation that the information
would not be revealed. I repeat that this is largely a function of the
UI and contract between the UI and the user. I don't think we can or
should make assumptions about that that is.
2 - The 480 with a Warning header was an option to provide
automata-friendly indication of the failure reason.
I don't have strong feelings about what the response is, so long as the
particular case is distinguishable in some way.
Thanks,
Paul
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
