Does not the definition of 399 Warning code clearly mentions "arbitrary
Information to be presented to a human user"
This is exact requirement in the mentioned scenario.
-vickey
399 Miscellaneous warning: The warning text can include arbitrary
information to be presented to a human user or logged. A
system receiving this warning MUST NOT take any automated
action.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz
Castillo
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:35 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Response code when MESSAGE isstored becauseuser
offline?
On Monday 04 February 2008 22:58:09 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
HI, many of you suggest the use of a "Warning" header in the "202 Accepted"
reply for a stored MESSAGE. But as I read in RFC3261 "Warning" header is
valid for describing problems related to SDP:
RFC 3261:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.43 Warning
The Warning header field is used to carry additional information
about the status of a response. Warning header field values are sent
with responses and contain a three-digit warning code, host name, and
warning text.
...
300 Incompatible network protocol: One or more network protocols
contained in the session description are not available.
301 Incompatible network address formats: One or more network
address formats contained in the session description are not
available.
302 Incompatible transport protocol: One or more transport
protocols described in the session description are not
available.
303 Incompatible bandwidth units: One or more bandwidth
measurement units contained in the session description were
not understood.
304 Media type not available: One or more media types contained in
the session description are not available.
305 Incompatible media format: One or more media formats contained
in the session description are not available.
306 Attribute not understood: One or more of the media attributes
in the session description are not supported.
307 Session description parameter not understood: A parameter
other than those listed above was not understood.
330 Multicast not available: The site where the user is located
does not support multicast.
331 Unicast not available: The site where the user is located does
not support unicast communication (usually due to the presence
of a firewall).
370 Insufficient bandwidth: The bandwidth specified in the session
description or defined by the media exceeds that known to be
available.
399 Miscellaneous warning: The warning text can include arbitrary
information to be presented to a human user or logged. A
system receiving this warning MUST NOT take any automated
action.
Additional "warn-code"s can be defined through IANA, as defined in
Section 27.2.
...
27.2 Warn-Codes
...
Warning codes provide information supplemental to the status code in
SIP response messages when the failure of the transaction results
from a Session Description Protocol (SDP) (RFC 2327 [1]) problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it could be "399 Miscellaneous warning"?
In fact I read this in RFC 3265:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"7.3.1. "202 Accepted" Response Code
The 202 response is added to the "Success" header field definition.
"202 Accepted" has the same meaning as that defined in HTTP/1.1 [3]."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it mean that it could be a "Success" header to inform the UAC about the
storage of him message? I've never read about a SIP "Success" header so maybe
it means the "202" code description (instead of "Accepted")?
Best regards.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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
