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

["Jeroen van Bemmel" <jbemmel at zonnet.nl>]

Jonathan,

Yes, that is the text I was refering to. As a consequence of that a proxy 
MUST NOT recurse on 302 if not responsible for the request URI (but this 
text is not literally in RFC3261). Still, a 302 sent by the callee's proxy 
could result in recursion in case of call forwarding scenarios, so 
conclusion remains that a new 4xx is better

Regards,
Jeroen

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> 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. 



_______________________________________________
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