Subject: [dispatch] Reason header in 205 responses

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:49:52 -0400 (EDT)

draft-kaplan-dispatch-sip-205-response-00 discusses using the Reason
header to indicate why the alternative UAS answered the call.  E.g.,

    Reason: SIP;cause=483;text="Too Many Hops" 
    Reason: SIP;cause=480;text="Temporarily Unavailable" 
    Reason: SIP;cause=404;text="Not Found" 
    Reason: SIP;cause=486;text="User Busy" 

However, there's ambiguity when a response contains a reason-value
with protocol value "SIP" -- what does it mean, given that the
response already has a response code?

I suggest that we define a new protocol value for building
reason-values that designate why an alternative UAS answered the call.
This would relieve all ambiguity of meaning.  Most likely the cause
values would be defined to be the same as SIP response codes, perhaps
with some additional values for special cases.  So we could have:

    Reason: 205cause;cause=483;text="B2bua-Hops exhausted" 
        (this one probably should have a special cause code)
    Reason: 205cause;cause=480;text="Temporarily Unavailable" 
    Reason: 205cause;cause=404;text="Not Found" 
    Reason: 205cause;cause=486;text="User Busy" 

Dale

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:02:35 -0400

IMO this is overkill.

I don't see the problem with using sip reason codes with 205.
The description of the 205 response can say something about how to 
interpret these.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 9/1/13 10:49 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>