Like I said in an earlier email, Reason phrases are not good enough for me, unless my phone has a translation for every language on Earth.
It is much preferred that my phone looks at the error code and presents me with a localised reason phrase. Hisham On 31/07/07, Francois Audet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now that we have everybody exited about the prospect of using a > Warn-Code > for "SIPS Not Allowed" and "SIP Required" with Response 480, instead of > using > new response codes, here is a quote from 27.2/RFC 3261. > > Warning codes provide information supplemental to the status code in > SIP response messages when the failure of the transaction results > from a Session Description Protocol (SDP) (RFC 2327 [1]) problem. > > My reading of this is that Warn-Codes are ONLY usable for SDP errors. > > Doesn't this disqualify the idea of using a Warn-Code for SIP/SIPS URI > problems?????? > > If so, aren't we back to 418/419, or 418+New header (Allow/Require), or > 480+Response text? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
