Isn't this what 416 is for? John
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 April 2007 00:14 > To: Francois Audet > Cc: SIP IETF; Hans Persson > Subject: Re: [Sip] Re: draft-ietf-sip-sips-03 > > > On Apr 27, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Francois Audet wrote: > > > > > Basically, I've used 403 (Forbidden) when a UAC tries to register > > with the wrong > > scheme in the Contact. > > > > And I've used 404 (Not Found) when a UAC sends a non-REGISTER > > request to a SIP URI when only a SIPS URI exists for that > resource. > > I used to have 403 for that, but I received > > some comments from somebody on the list that 404 (Not Found) would > > be more appropriate. > > > > I don't feel strongly about this issue. > > > > If anybody has any ideas, please go ahead. > > > > Nonchair comment: > > If we agree that SIP and SIPS point at the same thing, then > rejecting > a SIP request with a 404 when there is an "equivalent" registration > seems wrong. 403 seems better, but what it seems like we need is an > "Invalid Scheme" response. I'm also tempted by 488 (Not Acceptable > Here) even though we normally use that for SDP. > > Even a 400 (Bad Request) seems better than 404. > > -- > Dean > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
