Dale,

I guess it would be application specific. For example, a missing version 
field in SDP could generate a 6xx class response (thus aborting any other 
forks). An unknown XML element could be an extension, so it shouldn't 
generate a 6xx response. An XML syntax error (e.g. missing closing tag) on 
the other hand might generate one

I guess sending a 6xx would depend on the definition of "foreseen 
extensions". Since these are usually not well defined, I guess 4xx is the 
safest choice in many cases

Thanks,

Jeroen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dale R. Worley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sip-Implementors" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] best response code for bad request body


> On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 08:40 +0200, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
>> Wouldn't a 6xx class response be better? Since the UAS can determine that 
>> it
>> will fail globally, perhaps a 606 (Not Acceptable, global equivalent of a
>> 488) would be better?
>
> That's a fascinating idea...  I have always had a violent dislike of the
> 6xx responses (as one of those means that the UA is speaking for the
> entire universe of UAs that might be receiving forks of the call).  But
> if the request body violates the applicable standards, the UA could
> determine that no UA should accept the request.  So it is sensible to
> give a 6xx response in this situation.
>
> But I think that using a 4xx would still be preferable, because the UA
> might be mistaken in its judgment about the request body, or the
> requester might intend the request for a UA that would accept the out-
> of-specification request body.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Dale
>
> --- 
> interop.pingtel.com -- the public SIP phone interoperability test server
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors 

_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to