Thanks. I'm OK with this.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rohan Mahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 08:12 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > Cc: Cullen Jennings; Rohan Mahy; IETF SIP List; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Robert Sparks; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dean Willis > Subject: [Sip] Re: Warn-Codes and draft-ietf-sip-sips > > François, > > I think the IANA paragraph you described is too restrictive. > The text in RFC3261 section 20.43 seems perfectly fine with > registering non-SDP errors. I would allocate warn-code 380 > "No SIPS contacts registered". > > thanks, > -rohan > > On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Francois Audet 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
