Subject: Re: [Sip] Reason version 01

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:24:04 -0400

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> 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?).

Yes. I am not confident it is correct.

> 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?

I think its fine to be vague, or to simply strike the references 
completely from reason, so that the herfp draft defines the usage of 
Reason in 155. However, the change you suggest above was not made, and 
it seems reason-01 has been approved.....

-Jonathan R.

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

_______________________________________________
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: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:48:07 +0300

Jonathan,

inline:

Gonzalo wrote:
> > Does anybody see a problem with this approach?
> 

> it seems reason-01 has been approved.....

The references of reason-01 look like this:

8 Normative References

   [1] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne,  et al.  , "SIP: Session initiation
   protocol," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Feb.
   2002.  Work in progress.

   [2] J. Rosenberg, "The SIP UPDATE method," Internet Draft, Internet
   Engineering Task Force, Mar. 2002.  Work in progress.

   [3] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
   levels," RFC 2119, Internet Engineering Task Force, Mar. 1997.

references [1] and [2] need to be updated anyway. The RFC editor will
take care of that.

Then, the first time 155 is mentioned, there is a reference to [2]. I
can remove the reference, and speak about 155 without referencing any
document.

Gonzalo

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:51:53 -0500

> can remove the reference, and speak about 155 without referencing any

That will lead to some confusion; people familiar with the base SIP spec
will instinctively look at it for the definition of 155.

But, if that's the best that can be done, then so be it.  At least it is
a 1xx class provisional response, which kind of explains its intention.

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: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:06:05 -0400

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Jonathan,
> 
> inline:
> 
> Gonzalo wrote:
> 
>>>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
> 

I'd prefer to remove the reference, and not speak specifically about 
155, but rather about a response code that might need to carry 
additional reason phrases.

-Jonathan R.