Re: [Sip-implementors] Proposal for a mew SIP 4xx Error code

[Paul Kyzivat]

Ranjit,

I see you cross posted this proposal to multiple lists. There is large 
overlap in readership of those lists, so this creates a mess. I'm going 
to reply here, because this is the best place for such a query.


Please see inline below.

On 10/29/19 12:05 AM, Ranjit Avasarala wrote:

Hello all

Many times I experienced scenarios where SIP requests (e.g. INVITE, PUBLISH
or PRACK or any other) have either invalid parameters in the header or a
particular header is missing in the request or the header value is
incomplete.  Some e.gs are

- SIP Route header in INVITE contains additional "lr" parameter.
Ideally, "lr" parameter needs to be associated with a particular route -
i.e. sip URI
- the Accept header is missing in SIP PUBLISH
- the Allow header misses UPDATE method
- .  many more

Currently, in all the above cases the SIP Proxy server that receives the
request, responds with a 400 Bad Request.
Though 400 Bad Request is acceptable given that there is some issue in the
SIP request, a more detailed error would be more useful - as sometimes
interpreting 400 Bad Request is harder


You can use the Reason-Phrase in the 400 response to clarify what you 
are complaining about. This should be sufficient to help a developer to 
diagnose the issue and fix it. It won't be sufficient to all a 
preprogrammed reaction in the UAC, but I don't see that as a reasonable 
expectation for problems like this.


Thanks,
Paul


E.g.
a  4xx Invalid header/parameter may be more appropriate with reason
E.g. if there is additional "lr" parameter in SIP INVITE, then the proxy
can return a 4xx Invalid Header/parameter with Reason:  SIP code=4xx;
Text="Invalid lr parameter in Route header"

Let me know your thoughts on if this proposal can be taken forward as an
Internet draft.

Thank you
Ranjit
___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors



___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Re: [Sip-implementors] [dispatch] Proposal for a mew SIP 4xx Error code

[Christer Holmberg]

Hi,

I assume this discussion can be moved to SIPCORE, because I don't think 
DISPATCH needs to discuss the need for a new SIP response code, and where the 
work defining such would be done.

Regards,

Christer




From: dispatch  on behalf of Ranjit Avasarala 

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 6:05 AM
To: sipc...@ietf.org ; dispa...@ietf.org ; 
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu 
Subject: [dispatch] Proposal for a mew SIP 4xx Error code

Hello all

Many times I experienced scenarios where SIP requests (e.g. INVITE, PUBLISH or 
PRACK or any other) have either invalid parameters in the header or a 
particular header is missing in the request or the header value is incomplete.  
Some 
e.gs
 are

  *   SIP Route header in INVITE contains additional "lr" parameter. Ideally, 
"lr" parameter needs to be associated with a particular route - i.e. sip URI
  *   the Accept header is missing in SIP PUBLISH
  *   the Allow header misses UPDATE method
  *   .  many more

Currently, in all the above cases the SIP Proxy server that receives the 
request, responds with a 400 Bad Request.
Though 400 Bad Request is acceptable given that there is some issue in the SIP 
request, a more detailed error would be more useful - as sometimes interpreting 
400 Bad Request is harder
E.g.
a  4xx Invalid header/parameter may be more appropriate with reason
E.g. if there is additional "lr" parameter in SIP INVITE, then the proxy can 
return a 4xx Invalid Header/parameter with Reason:  SIP code=4xx; Text="Invalid 
lr parameter in Route header"

Let me know your thoughts on if this proposal can be taken forward as an 
Internet draft.

Thank you
Ranjit


___
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors