On Apr 29, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
Isn't this what 416 is for?
In 2003, Adam said this about 416, and I'm not sure I recall how we
resolved it:
Just posting here to request a new bug to be opened against
RFC 3261.
21 Response Codes
The response codes are consistent with, and extend, HTTP/1.1
response
codes. Not all HTTP/1.1 response codes are appropriate, and only
those that are appropriate are given here. Other HTTP/1.1 response
codes SHOULD NOT be used.
Strictly speaking, this is no longer true -- and I suspect time will
make it less and less so.
Compare, for example, SIP "416 Unsupported URI Scheme" with
HTTP "416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable".
We should open up a bug against the spec to revise this language
when we open it for revisions again.
If complete consistency is required, we need to renumber SIP 416,
and develop some sort of joint IANA registry (in conjunction with
and with the buy-in of the HTTP community) to prevent these types
of collisions in the future. Given how disruptive such a change
would be, I suspect we should just let the number spaces diverge.
although I think the resolution was that SIP and HTTP had diverged
and we should just get that through our heads.
--
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
