Subject: [Sip] Reason version 01

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:18:41 +0300

Folks,

I have just released version 01 of the Reason draft. Until it appears in
the archives, you can fetch it from:
http://standards.ericsson.net/gonzalo/papers/draft-ietf-sip-reason-01.txt

Only minor modifications has been done since version 00.

Best regards,

Gonzalo
-- 
Gonzalo Camarillo         Phone :  +358  9 299 33 71
Oy L M Ericsson Ab        Mobile:  +358 40 702 35 35
Telecom R&D               Fax   :  +358  9 299 30 52
FIN-02420 Jorvas          Email :  [email-masked]
Finland                   http://www.hut.fi/~gonzalo

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://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: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:50:33 -0500

> Only minor modifications has been done since version 00.

Gonzalo:

155 provisional response has been excised from the UPDATE I-D; the
Reason I-D has a now invalid reference which lists the UPDATE I-D for
155 responses.  Additionally, HERFP has also been excised from the
UPDATE I-D, leaving it mainly as a media negotiation method before
the dialog is established.

I believe I saw email from Jonathan on the WG list where he declared
his intention to publish an extension to UPDATE, which lists the 155
response I-D as well as HERFP.  I am wondering if we should define
the 155 provisional response code and HERFP in the Reason I-D, since it
depends on both as use cases.

Regards,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 11:23:13 +0300

Hi Vijay,

Good point. I forgot completely about updating the references. 

I believe that Jonathan wants to wait for a while before advancing the
155 stuff to RFC (Jonathan, can you confirm this point?). But we have to
advance 3pcc and Reason together. 

However, I do not think we have any problem. The reason draft can speak
about 155 responses without referencing any RFC. It is enough that the
155 status code is registered wherever we are registering status codes
(is it already in IANA or we still have a temporary repository?).

Does anybiody see a problem with this approach?

thanks,

Gonzalo