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

[Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen at cisco.com>]

Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:

> Francois,
>
> Refer to RFC3261 16.5: if a proxy is not responsible for the request URI 
> it MUST NOT recurse on 302

It most certainly does not say that.

Perhaps you are referring to this text:

 A proxy MUST NOT add additional targets to the target set if the
   Request-URI of the original request does not indicate a resource this
   proxy is responsible for.

This is referring to the R-URI in the original INVITE, not the one in 
the contact in the 3xx.

> 416 does not have the right semantics (since the endpoint may in fact 
> support sips, proxies currently should never generate this response)

WHy is that? Section 21.4.14 says nothing about UA vs. proxies. It talks 
about servers. I think 416 is not far off.

However to be honest we need to explicitly indicate that the problem was 
sips-to-sip so that the original UA can decide whether to retry. Thus 
I'd suggest a new 4xx code.

-Jonathan R.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
jdrosen at cisco.com                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com


_______________________________________________
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