At 10:54 AM 7/30/2007, Francois Audet wrote:
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.
btw -- for location-conveyance-07, I created 15 new Warning codes (#s 701 through 712, then 720, 721, and 722). All this at the suggestion of Henning (who knows something about 3261 text... ;-)
btw II - I have since replaced the Warning header indication with a new Geolocation-Error header, but this was so I could stuff more into the new header than the Warning header would allow.
In all this, I did not get one person claiming Warning codes were limited to 3XX. Henning merely said the "first batch of codes were in the 300s, and that there was nothing limiting a new ID from defining new codes in any other number range"...
> -----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
