> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 04:25 > To: Rohan Mahy > Cc: Hadriel Kaplan; 'IETF SIP List'; Audet, Francois > (SC100:3055); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Paul Kyzivat' > Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-05: 480 vs. 418 > > Question: as currently defined can these two new warnings be > reused by any future method that is hopefully more secure > than SIPS so that we don't have to rehash this argument again?
The draft uses the Warn-codes in 480. But it could be used by other response (e.g., 424 for location conveyance, if we decide it makes sense). Or any other response. I'm assuming you mean "other URI schemes" instead of "other methods". I currently have it as follows: 380 SIPS Not Allowed 381 SIPS Required So, obviously, they are tied to SIPS. If we defined another URI scheme (e.g., sipsec or whatever), then it would probably need new Warning Codes. The alternative, which I presented in Chicago, based on Attila's proposal (i.e., defining a new header that specifically list the Allowed or Required URI schemes) was NOT viewed favorably by the group. _______________________________________________ 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
