Correct. > -----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
