(As WG chair) We have a couple of related milestones on our charter that we are stuck on:
Jul 2007 Diagnostic Responses for SIP Errors to WGLC (PS) Nov 2007 Diagnostic Responses for SIP Errors to IESG (PS) The draft associated with this expired some way back, but you can find it at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-hop-limit-diagnostics-03 The charter item is for a more general document that covers other error situations as well as hop limit issues. However the editor's hit the intractable problem in that any transport decision is made on the request on any particular hop, and if UDP is used on the request, it will also be used on the response on any particular hop. This was specified based on the assumption that any response would not be significantly larger than the request, but as soon as we start putting lots of useful diagnostic information in the response, this no longer applies. So we are now looking for the way forward. Options include: A) It is not worth the extra cycles - delete the milestone. B) Limit the diagnostic information (to say around 100 bytes in the worst case). If so will it contain enough useful information to make it usable. C) Solve the transport problem. And no, we do not have a debate here on deprecating UDP. We've been there and done that. Unless people can come up with something that looks achievable, the working group chairs are currently favouring A) above. Comments please. Keith _______________________________________________ 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
