[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Simple] 501 Not Implemented considered harmful in MSRP
Hi,
On 2006-02-14, Hisham Khartabil <hisham.khartabil at telio.no> wrote:
> You can extend MSRP with new methods. We however do not
> negotiate supported MSRP methods in the offer/answer exchange
> when initiating the request. Therefore 501 is needed. I don't
> understand why 400 is better in this case.
RFC 3261 "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol":
"SIP supports five facets of establishing and terminating
multimedia communications:
-- --
User capabilities: determination of the media and media
parameters to be used;
-- --
Session management: including transfer and termination
of sessions, modifying session parameters, and
invoking services."
Why should MSRP implement a lacklustre detour on something that
is SIP's forte?
In my opinion, MSRP should explicitly promote the negotiation
of all extensions, some of which may introduce new request
methods, via an offer--answer exchange, because the introduction
of such an extension is a disruptive change---there's a chance
that the other endpoint is unable to support it.
Thus, the rationale behind my proposition to use the status code
400 for an unknown request method is to make it clear that it's
unacceptable to bypass session control when making disruptive
changes to a medium.
BR,
--
Jussi K. Virtanen
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple