I agree with Paul. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 16:27 > To: Dean Willis > Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); SIP IETF > Subject: Re: [Sip] Re: draft-ietf-sip-sips-03 > > > > 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
