[Sip] RE: draft-ietf-sip-sips-04: 403 instead of last hop exception

["Francois Audet" <audet at nortel.com>]

Actually, 416 would achieve what you want.
302 would not be backward compatible because some proxy somewhere could
recurse on it, resulting in a downgrade.

If people prefer a 416, I can put that. 

I do personaly prefer the 403, because I'd like to avoid any thing that
would cause a proxy to "automatically" recurse, thereby resulting
in a downgrade.

________________________________

	From: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:jbemmel at zonnet.nl] 
	Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 16:20
	To: sip at ietf.org
	Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
	Subject: draft-ietf-sip-sips-04: 403 instead of last hop
exception
	
	
	In section 4.2
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-sips-04.txt proposes
that a proxy should send 403 rather than apply the last hop exception.
	 
	Instead, I would propose that it would send a 302 with either
the registered Contact or the received request URI with a "sip:" scheme.
403 would be confusing, because the caller cannot distinguish between
this case and the callee refusing his call. Perhaps a new response code
(4xx Unsecure transport not allowed) would be better.
	 
	Perhaps a caller preference should be defined to request such
behavior, similar to "fork" and "no-fork" (RFC3841). Say "no-sips-sip"
	 
	Regards,
	Jeroen



_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip