Subject: [Sip] Draft submission: draft-ietf-sip-199-00

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:06:21 +0200

Hi,

I've submitted the first version of the SIP WG 199 draft.

It can also be found at:

http://users.piuha.net/cholmber/drafts/draft-ietf-sip-199-00.txt

Regards,

Christer
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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: "Vikram Chhibber" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:29:23 +0530

Hi Christer,

Besides conveying the indication for terminated early dialog, this
response can also carry additional information of the reason of
termination as indicated by Warning, Reason or History-Info header
received in the final failure response from UAS to the forking proxy.

I think it is worth mentioning the rules of creating this 199 response
by forking proxy which includes preserving these headers from the
actual final failure response.

Earlier, all this information was lost as the forking proxy had to
suppress the final failure response and had to forward the most
appropriate final response back.

Thanks,
~Vikram

---

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 11:14:26 +0200

Hi, 

>Besides conveying the indication for terminated early dialog, this
response can also carry additional information of the 
>reason of termination as indicated by Warning, Reason or History-Info
header received in the final failure response from 
>UAS to the forking proxy.
>
by forking proxy which includes preserving these 
>headers from the actual final failure response.

We need to be a little careful here. 

There were long discussions on what the scope of this draft was going to
be: simply to indicate that an early dialog has been terminated, or to
go further and solve the whole so called HERPF problem. The agreement
was that the scope is to indicate than an early dialog has been
terminated.

Now, the draft DOES say the following:

"The UAC MAY use additional information (for example the final response
which triggered the 199 response) received in the 199 response when
initiating new sessions, if it is possible to avoid the new session
initation request to be rejected."

So, that doesn't forbid sending of header information etc, but I am not
sure that we want to start specifying rules about that - at least not in
this draft.

>Earlier, all this information was lost as the forking proxy had to
suppress the final failure response and had to forward 
>the most appropriate final response back.

I agree. But, again, the question is whether that is within the scope of
the draft or not.

Regards,

Christer

> 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: "Vikram Chhibber" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:08:08 +0530

Thanks Christer.

Yes, I agree that the draft should avoid such rules. My observation
was specifically in the the "Proxy Behavior" section which mentions
only about To header tag creation identifying the terminated early
dialog.

 "The  199 provisional response MUST contain a To header tag parameter,
 which identifies the early dialog that has been terminated."

It is still worth mentioning about the other informational headers
that the proxy may propagate from received final failure response
towards UAC in 199 response.

~Vikram
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Christer Holmberg

---

From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:35:46 +0200

Hi, 

>Yes, I agree that the draft should avoid such rules. My observation was
specifically in the the "Proxy Behavior" section 
>which mentions only about To header tag creation identifying the
terminated early dialog.
>"The  199 provisional response MUST contain a To header tag parameter,
which identifies the early dialog that has been 
>terminated."

Yes. But, that is required in order to identity which early dialog is
terminated.

>It is still worth mentioning about the other informational headers that
the proxy may propagate from received final 
>failure response towards UAC in 199 response.

I guess I could add, to the proxy section, a note saying that the proxy
may include information (including response codes and header values)
from the message which triggered the 199 response.

Regards,

Christer

~Vikram

> "The UAC MAY use additional information (for example the final 
> response which triggered the 199 response) received in the 199 
> response when initiating new sessions, if it is possible to avoid the 
> new session initation request to be rejected."
>
> So, that doesn't forbid sending of header information etc, but I am 
> not sure that we want to start specifying rules about that - at least 
> not in this draft.
>
> I agree. But, again, the question is whether that is within the scope 
> of the draft or not.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>