My personal opinion is that those are good suggestions. But it does mean 2 new headers as well. I also like the idea of having only one response code (i.e., 418 Invalid URI scheme).
Any other opinions? I will flag this as a remaining issue in Chicago. > -----Original Message----- > From: Attila Sipos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 00:51 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-sips-05.txt - comment on > response codes 418 and 419 > > > This draft specifies two new response codes: > > 418 SIPS Not Allowed > 419 SIPS Required > > With sipsec around the corner shouldn't we make these headers > more generic like we do for other SIP things? > > For example, if someone uses a method we don't allow then we > return "405 Method Not Allowed" and then list the allowed > methods in the Allow header. > And there is a similar solution for SIP extensions (420 Bad > Extension or 421 Extension Required). > > So how about: > 418 URI Scheme Not Allowed > Allow-URI: sip > > 419 URI Scheme Required > Require-URI: sips,sipsec > > In fact, you probably only need one of them as they are > almost identical in resultant behaviour. > > Regards, > > Attila > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
