> Admittedly this makes less sense for a 503 in light of > > rfc3261 section 21.5.4 503 Service Unavailable: > > "A client (proxy or UAC) receiving a 503 (Service > Unavailable) SHOULD attempt to forward the > request to an alternate server." > > but I would not want to make an exception for 503 without > much consideration.
The special exception for 503 is mentioned within rfc3261 and rfc3263. I'm not aware of a consensus to remove the exception for 503. However the results of draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs might trigger desire to alter behavior concerning sending/receiving Retry-After value within the 503 response. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
