Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
> What is the reason?
Ah, if you read my previous emails I confessed in not
being able to remember it. I wish I did. It will
be nice to talk about why we went with a 6xx-class
with others in Quebec City.
> I know that in sipXecs, we've effectively removed the 6xx responses
> by adjusting the proxy to treat them in the same way as 4xx
> responses. Everything works better because of that. It seems to me
> that 6xx was *fundamentally* a mistake, based on the erroneous belief
> that a downstream element could have global knowledge of the
> potential destinations of a call.
Under certain cases, I don't necessarily see this belief as
erroneous. Problem is in how a globally authoritative
response interacts with other features in a protocol.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
