Hi, Just want to make sure if it is possible to add more warning codes for Warning header or is it limited to 3xx values as defined in RFC 3261.
Otherwise, we can define some standard reason phrase for the common erro scenarios responses. -Udit ----- Forwarded by Udit Goyal/C/US/3Com on 04/20/2005 07:01 PM ----- Udit Goyal/C/US/3Com 04/19/2005 02:33 PM To [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc [email protected], [email protected] Subject Re: [Sip-implementors] Busy condition 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 PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/19/2005 01:43 AM To Udit Goyal/C/US/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] 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 protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
