Re: [Sip] INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Elwell, John
>
> I think the 488 precedent was unfortunate. If you send SDP offer in a
> reliable provisional response or a 2xx response, 488 isn't available to
> you (except I suppose you could put a Reason header in the PRACK or ACK
> request, but I don't really want to go there).

The same could be said of 413, 415, 493, etc.  If the UAC can't fundamentally handle an INVITE response's body, it can send a CANCEL, with the Reason header.  I thought that was the point of the Reason header - to be able to send the failure reason in requests.
>From RFC 3326:
   "SIP responses already offer a means of informing the user of why a
   request failed.  The simple mechanism in this document accomplishes
   something roughly similar for requests."


> So I don't think we need we need a way of indicating in an INFO response
> problems with body content in the request.  Let the application send an
> INFO request in the reverse direction.

That's not always technically possible, AFAICT.  If the body content is bad, there's no guarantee it even got to the app-layer.

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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