Dean Willis wrote:
On Apr 30, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Francois Audet wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I think we need is something that says "I do not like
your scheme. Here's a list of alternatives that I prefer."
You can send 3XX with the scheme(s) you support.
That's what the document currently describes.
The problem I see, and I may just be imagining this, is that there's no
way for the receiver of a 302 to know whether it means
1) The party you have called cannot be reached, please try this other
party.
or
2) The mechanism (scheme) you have chosen to use cannot be used right
now. Please try this other mechanism.
or
3) You need some additional parameters to reach the party you have
selected along with the scheme you have selected.
There are heuristics that might apply. For example, if the only
difference between the R-URI of a request and the Contact of a 302
response is in the scheme, then we probably have a scheme change.
I don't see that the distinction matters. You called URL-1 and are told
you should try URL-2. You get a hint on the significance depending on
whether it is a 301 or 302 response. (If the recipient doesn't support
sip, then 301 is the way to go I think.)
Don't think too hard about it - just do what you are told in this case.
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
