Subject: [Sip] Open Issue #121: Reason codes for BYE/CANCEL

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:31:21 -0400

Rohan wrote on this:
> #121 "reason codes for CANCEL/BYE"
>  >Would like to have BYE/CANCEL Reason phrases/codes
>  >- Compatible with PSTN
>  >- Differing UA behaviors depending on reason for CANCEL
>  >- UA hangup vs. other branch completed (drop to voicemail!)
>  >- 3pcc treatments
>  >Issue: what codes to use
>  >Proposal: existing response codes/reason phrases
>  >Mostly for 3pcc case
>  >But: need more! Like why CANCEL was sent in forking case
> 
> rohan> This is new functionality, and does not belong in bis 
> IMO.  Some 
> draft such as Visited or cc-diversion could easily provide 
> this type of 
> information.

Let me provide an example of what this would be for, just to elaborate on
the text above.

Consider a proxy that forks an INVITE to two phones, both of which are
maintaining call logs. The first phone answers, so the proxy generates a
CANCEL to the second. Now, does the second phone put an entry into the call
log for a "missed call" or not? In this case, it shouldn't. But, if the UA
cancelled the call since it gave up, it would need to. To distinguish, we
need some kind of reason code/phrase in CANCEL (and BYE) to indicate the
reason.

Rohan is correct that this is new functionality. So, we should decide
whether to put it in bis or not. THere is most definitely new stuff in bis,
but whether this is important enough to go in or not, thats the question.
I'm probably inclined to agree that since this is a non-trivial list to come
up with, it probably belongs elsewhere (most of the new stuff in bis fits
into the category of trivial and really useful). I don't see what it has to
do with cc-diversion or visited, though, but that would be debated when we
come back to this. 

So, the proposal then is to punt this to an extension (and indeed Dave had
one way back when that we could revive if there was interest).

Speak now, or TWO WEEKS hence this will be the final decision.

-Jonathan R.

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:38:41 +0300

Hi,

To implement this, we need a new header ('Reason', for example), and a
number of new codes (assuming the others will be identical to the
existing response codes), so from that point of view one could argue
that it should be a separate draft. 

We should, however, remember that some of the new codes may actually
also be usable as response codes, and one could even argue that we don't
even have to distinguish between them - we simply define a set of codes,
of which some can be used as response codes, some as 'reason codes', and
some as both. 

One idea would be to do as it has been done in H.248 - put all the codes
in a separate draft (annex). The only thing the bis would define is the
TYPE of code, ie 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, 4xx, 5xx and 6xx, and how to act on
those.

Also, this will affect the ISUP-SIP mapping, so I guess that draft will
also be affected (Gonzalo?).

Regards,

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:09:36 -0400

I support the idea of reason codes for BYE/CANCEL. However, I agree that
there are too many other more important issues for bis and the issue should
be addressed by an extension draft.

(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
[email-masked]

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 04:07:05 +0300

Hello,

Let's keep this out of bis, as you propose. About Dave's draft, I saw
the header some where, but not the whole draft... don't know if it was
published at all or if I just missed it.

Regards,

Gonzalo

-- 
Gonzalo Camarillo                    Phone :   +1 212 939 71 71
Columbia University                  Mobile:  +358 40 702 35 35
472 Computer Science Building        Fax   :  +358  9 299 30 52
1214 Amsterdam Ave., Mail Code 0401  http://www.hut.fi/~gonzalo
New York, NY 10027                   
USA                              [email-masked]