Yes, it makes more sense if draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-09 use 380 and 381 values (with 424) instead of 720/721.
Hisham On 01/08/07, Francois Audet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Looks like the Warning Codes approach is preferred. > > I'm glad I'm now reading > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-08.txt > . > > I almost fell off my chair when I saw the following two Error codes > defined in > James' draft: > > 3.4.12 Warning code 720 Unsupported Schema - sip desired > > > A Warning header with the code 720 "Unsupported Schema - sip > desired" means the location dereferencer cannot dereference using > the location-by-reference URI schema supplied because it does not > support the necessary protocol to do this. This Warning code means > the location recipient can dereference the target's location using a > sip-URI schema. There can be more than one Warning code in a > Warning header, indicated in this context the recipient can > dereference using each schema protocol included in the Warning > header. > > A typical reaction to receiving this warning code would be for the > location sender to send a URI with the sip schema. > > Recommended warn-text: unsupported schema > > An example usage in a SIP 424 response: > > Warning: 720 alice.example.com "unsupported schema - sip desired" > > > 3.4.12 Warning code 721 Unsupported Schema - sips desired > > > A Warning header with the code 721 "Unsupported Schema - sips > desired" means the location dereferencer cannot dereference using > the location-by-reference URI schema supplied because it does not > support the necessary protocol to do this. This Warning code means > the location recipient can dereference the target's location using a > sips-URI schema. There can be more than one Warning code in a > Warning header, indicated in this context the recipient can > dereference using each schema protocol included in the Warning > header. > > Recommended warn-text: unsupported schema > > An example usage in a SIP 424 response: > > Warning: 721 alice.example.com "unsupported schema - sips desired" > > As James pointed out, in -07, those were Warning headers, now they > are Geoprive headers. > > If we are going to use 2 new Warning Headers in draft-ietf-sip-sips (say > 380 and 381), wouldn't it make more sense if > draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-09 > use those values (with 424) instead of 720/721? > > It seems to me that error 720-723 would be potentially applicable to more > than just Location. 700-711 however are specific to location, and should > remain > as defined. > > Any toughts? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 09:20 > > To: Rohan Mahy; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > > Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF SIP List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > Robert Sparks; Dean Willis > > Subject: RE: [Sip] Re: Warn-Codes and draft-ietf-sip-sips > > > > As Jame's has already remarked, we did discuss this in the > > context of location-conveyance. > > > > I believe the SIP list conclusion at that point was that the > > RFC 3261 text was not preventing usage, but the IANA registry > > text did. > > > > The Warning header registry was created by RFC 3261 in the > > days before formal IANA considerations sections in RFCs. As > > draft-ietf-sip-sips updates RFC 3261, it would seem to me > > that it is entirely appropriate for that document to update > > the IANA registry for Warning headers. By this I mean you > > need to update the registry definition itself, as well as add > > new values to it. > > > > This is of course assuming that we decide that Warning > > headers are the way to go. > > > > Regards > > > > Keith > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rohan Mahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:12 PM > > > To: Francois Audet > > > Cc: Cullen Jennings; Rohan Mahy; IETF SIP List; DRAGE, > > Keith (Keith); > > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
