[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Sipping] Re: Comments on draft-elwell-sipping-redirection-reason-02.txt

Hi,

Because that doesn't work when a 3xx is used - 302 does not capture the fact
that it was because of busy, say.

You would return a 302 with a History-Info header field with a 486 Busy... the problem with the 302 response has nothing to do with the new namespace. You have the same problem even if you use a new namespace.

Also not all reasons can be represented by
SIP response codes. I am currently writing a new (00) draft along with some
other people. This will propose a different mechanism but will still require
a new namespace to reflect different service retargeting reasons. Hoping to
hit the cut-off date for Vancouver.

Can you provide examples of reasons that cannot be represented by SIP response codes? If they are general reasons, what we need to do is to create new response codes. We probably do not need a new namespace.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

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