Subject: [Sip] Re: [Sip-implementors] Busy condition

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:33:17 -0400

Hi Wayne,

I agree that for Warning header field, the scope is limited because of the 
codes already defined in 3261
Moreover, they mainy defines the failures induced by the SDP

Giving more error status information in the reason phrase is also ok but 
it is more like implementation dependent as per RFC 3261.
It does not define any standard error phrases for this purpose.

Even we cant use "Reason" header (RFC 3326) for this purpose because it 
defines cause to be the SIP status code so it will also not serve any 
purpose.

What I think is providing more error warning codes for failure cases will 
be better as error codes are always better than reason phrases because of 
ease of automatic action.
Cant we have something like 4xx warning codes too.. or is it like 3xx is 
only available for SIP.

-Udit

[email-masked] 
Sent by: [email-masked]
04/19/2005 01:43 AM

To
Udit Goyal/C/US/3Com@3Com
cc
[email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject
Re: [Sip-implementors] Busy condition

Udit,
Both methods of communicating more detail for the error condition
seem valid / ok to me.

It appears the main difference in their use is that the Warning
header entries are mandated in 3261 and furthered by IANA registered ones.
The warning codes range for SIP is stated as being the 3xx block which are
already divided up into categories, currently there seems limited scope in
using this range (390 - 399 for miscellaneous).

3261 supports extending the default reason phrase for responses and
gives some specific examples of this is advocated 261 gives examples of
doing this for specific responses (182, 400, 480). Advocating a standard
for the wording for common conditions like your examples below might be a
good idea.

Regards - Wayne.

Udit asked:
*************************************************************
Hi,

I was just wondering that are there any ways to give different indications
when user is not able to take the call.
There are error responses like 480, 486 used to indicate the busy
condition but still they are not able to indicate the exact failure
status.
However, there can be scenarios like:
i)   User rejects the call.
ii)  All lines are busy and user cant take the call.
iii) Ringing timeout occur: No Answer and more....

I feel there are possibilities of indicating to the end user by using
error response status text, "Warning" header, or "Reason" header.
Please let me know which is more standard approach followed.

Thanks,
Udit
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

**********************************************************************
Any personal or sensitive information contained in this email and
attachments must be handled in accordance with the Victorian Information
Privacy Act 2000, the Health Records Act 2001 or the Privacy Act 1988
(Commonwealth), as applicable.

This email, including all attachments, is confidential.  If you are not 
the
intended recipient, you must not disclose, distribute, copy or use the
information contained in this email or attachments.  Any confidentiality 
or
privilege is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you in
error.  If you have received it in error, please let us know by reply
email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies.
**********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
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