On Dec 5, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
I think the 488 precedent was unfortunate. If you send SDP offer in areliable 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 ACKrequest, but I don't really want to go there).
Which is why the SDP response should have been in a request sent back from terminating UA to originating UA, and not in an answer. But that cat and most of its relatives are out of the bag, at least for SIP 2.0. Note for posterity: you can't fix a broken leg with a band-aid well enough for running on, but if you add enough band-aids, you just might make a squishy-sticky prosthetic that lets you limp along.
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 anINFO request in the reverse direction.
I concur. It might be reasonable for the SIP stack to send a 4xx response meaning "I have no idea what to do with this INFO body; I either don't understand it, or I have no application to hand it to". Beyond that, it just isn't SIP's job to express application semantics in a response code.
-- Dean _______________________________________________ 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