Ok, that's fine with me. It's just a glitch in 3261 then. I'd rather we stick with the Warn-Codes approach.
Did you assign a purpose for 7XX-series warn-codes yet? I'm wondering what range should be used for this purpose. James, I didn't see your codes on IANA's web site. What values are you using? I don't want to overlap. > -----Original Message----- > From: James M. Polk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 21:44 > 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 > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
