From: "Vikram Chhibber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't think there is any RFC recommendation for this behavior. The best you can assume that the UE understands MESSAGE. In this case, sending back non 2xx final response in most cases would be interpreted as failure for MESSAGE. In my opinion 202 Accepted is the best response with Warning header you can send.
I think this is the best choice -- If the UAS responds with a 4xx code, not only is this defined to mean that the request failed, but also that the request *has no effect*, which is clearly not the case, since the message was stored. The response 202 is already defined to mean "the SIP request was processed, but further user action may be required for it to take effect", which is very close to the meaning of the situation. Also, one can include a Warning header explaining the situation (and hope that the UA provides access to its text portion. It may be useful to standardize a warn-code for this situation. It seems wise to send reply MESSAGE containing a user-readable message. Fortunately, it is almost certain that the UAC processes MESSAGE requests, and the original MESSAGE has established a route set for sending the response MESSAGE. In this case, you would want to throttle response MESSAGEs to ensure that one sending user did not receive more than one response MESSAGE for one receiving user over a significant period of time. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
