With a new 4xx response, existing implementations would treat it as 400 anyway.
In any case, option 1 is good enough, but I am not a fan of using reason phrases as indicators to humans. I call someone is Japan and get a Japanese string telling me 'SIPS required'. I would have no clue what its saying. Hisham On 31/07/07, Francois Audet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Existing implementations would ignore the Warning, and normal treatment > for 480 > would occur. I.e., it would be the same treatment as if the user is > recognized as > beeing a valid user, but he's currently not logged in. > > With 418, existing implementations would treat it as 400. I.e., it would > be > as if the message itself had an error. > > This may need to different UI for the user (e.g., different tone played, > different > message displayed, etc.) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 13:12 > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat) > > Cc: IETF SIP List > > Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-05: 480 vs. 418 > > > > I do not have a real preference, but provided the reason for > > using 480 vs. 418 is to minimize naïve downgrading from SIPS > > to SIP, I do not see how option 2, resulting in: > > > > 480 > > Warning: 390 isi.edu "Please use a SIP URI" > > > > helps matters. > > > > Cheers, > > Charles > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:59 AM > > > To: Paul Kyzivat (pkyzivat) > > > Cc: IETF SIP List > > > Subject: RE: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-05: 480 vs. 418 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:47 > > > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > > > > Cc: IETF SIP List > > > > Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-05: 480 vs. 418 > > > > > > > > I don't know what you mean about Option 1 being opaque to > > automata. > > > > It seems to me it provides comparable info to Option 2, > > giving that > > > > the UAC knows what it used in the request. > > > > > > It means an Automata can not "upgrade" or "downgrade" > > > automatically with > > > OPTION 1, as the indication is not a "hard" indication. It is a > > > Warning text that is not standardized, and will vary by language, > > > operators, region, etc. > > > > > > Best it can do is "record" the Warning text. That can be done > > > automatically of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
