RFC 3261, p. 181:
"The first digit of warning codes beginning with "3" indicates
warnings
specific to SIP."
Then it explains within the 3XX space, how they are used.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Polk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 18:25
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Alan Hawrylyshen; Kyzivat
> Paul; Mahy Rohan
> Cc: IETF SIP List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-05: 480 vs. 418
>
> A 399 Miscellaneous? That doesn't make sense...
>
> Warning codes are not limited to 3XX, so if a new Warning
> code is what Rohan wants to convey more information in the
> response (which I believe should be done one way or another)
> - it can be almost any value other than 300-379 or 399 IMO.
>
> At 10:32 AM 7/27/2007, Francois Audet wrote:
> >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
>
_______________________________________________
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
