Thanks Christer. Yes, I agree that the draft should avoid such rules. My observation was specifically in the the "Proxy Behavior" section which mentions only about To header tag creation identifying the terminated early dialog.
"The 199 provisional response MUST contain a To header tag parameter, which identifies the early dialog that has been terminated." It is still worth mentioning about the other informational headers that the proxy may propagate from received final failure response towards UAC in 199 response. ~Vikram On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Christer Holmberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > >>Besides conveying the indication for terminated early dialog, this > response can also carry additional information of the >>reason of termination as indicated by Warning, Reason or History-Info > header received in the final failure response from >>UAS to the forking proxy. >> >>I think it is worth mentioning the rules of creating this 199 response > by forking proxy which includes preserving these >>headers from the actual final failure response. > > We need to be a little careful here. > > There were long discussions on what the scope of this draft was going to > be: simply to indicate that an early dialog has been terminated, or to > go further and solve the whole so called HERPF problem. The agreement > was that the scope is to indicate than an early dialog has been > terminated. > > Now, the draft DOES say the following: > > "The UAC MAY use additional information (for example the final response > which triggered the 199 response) received in the 199 response when > initiating new sessions, if it is possible to avoid the new session > initation request to be rejected." > > So, that doesn't forbid sending of header information etc, but I am not > sure that we want to start specifying rules about that - at least not in > this draft. > >>Earlier, all this information was lost as the forking proxy had to > suppress the final failure response and had to forward >>the most appropriate final response back. > > I agree. But, again, the question is whether that is within the scope of > the draft or not. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > >> >> Hi, >> >> I've submitted the first version of the SIP WG 199 draft. >> >> It can also be found at: >> >> http://users.piuha.net/cholmber/drafts/draft-ietf-sip-199-00.txt >> >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sip mailing list https://www.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://www.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
