Hi Francois, >I would like to make draft-ietf-sip-199 more useful by expanding it's capabilities. > >I would like to add a REQ-2 that allows that the Proxy to indicate WHY the dialog was terminated. > >This would be done by having the 199 response include (as a sifrag or watever) the actual error response that terminated >the dialog. At a minimum it would include the value of the error code itself. > >I would like to add text in the second-to-last paragraph of section one that explains that the reason for specific >dialogs to be terminated may be useful for the client to take appropriate action (for example, by re-attempting a call >to a specific branch when the error is recoverable). And some similar text in section 4 on UAC behavior. > >I think that would make the document more useful.
The agreement in Dublin was to not say anything about sipfrag. But, I am ok with putting it back, especially if people want more use-cases. I guess it could be optional for the UAC to inidicate support of sipfrag. >PS: I also agree with Hadriel's use cases as generally more useful than the ones currently listed in the draft. My intention is to add those use-cases to the next version of the draft. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
