> -----Original Message----- > From: Anders Kristensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 9:44 PM > > In any event (no pun intended) I don't think the draft adequately deals > with the implications of this model. If errors occurring at higher > layers aren't reported as failure of the INFO request itself, it pretty > much follows that the 200 response to the INFO must include a payload > that carries info (sorry, pun not intended here either) on the error.
No I think the logic that Eric's arguing for is "you asked for delivery of this package, and I'm responding with 200 ok because it was delivered". In other words treat INFO as a delivery vehicle, like MESSAGE, and as long as the package was delivered you send a 200 ok, with no correlation to if/when the package was opened and read successfully or not by a higher-layer info-package "consumer". > The alternatives would be: > 1) Don't report app-level errors. Perhaps OK for simple packages. > 2) Report outcome in separate INFO requests going in the opposite > direction. Seems wasteful and requires additional app-level correlation. Yeah, I think Eric's argument is for (2). If they need it, they pay for it. I don't personally care either way - I'm more interested in knowing if current INFO users *need* to have a 200 ok sent back even on content processing failure. Because if someone needs it, then we should define it that way; anyone else who doesn't and wants to integrate it into the response can still freely send back a 415 or 488 or whatever to the INFO, because the rules for a UAC would not change and none would be the wiser. But it does mean all drafts defining a specific package would need to put rules in for how to indicate subsequent failure after a 200 ok if they need to, and that sucks. :( I'm trying to see what Subscribe/Notify does about this, and grep can't seem to find anything. I wonder if this was not handled in Sub/Not? > AFAICT the draft has no discussion on how to carry app-level success or > failure indications. In fact, the table in sec 5.2 indicates that > Info-Package is allowed in requests only. Right, only in requests. Failure of the INFO delivery or package-name type stuff would be in this draft as a request failure; whereas failure to process the package contents (ie body content) would be specified by the drafts which define specific packages. Presumably they would need to specify error indications in reverse-direction INFO requests, or better yet ignore the error if possible. -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
