From: "Francois Audet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I really think that this draft should make the inclusion of the original
non-2XX final response in the 199 MANDATORY by the forking proxy. This would
be in a message/sip body as described in sectin 23.4/RFC 3261.
(This is outside the scope of the I-D itself.)
If we envision having the 199 carry information from the associated
failure response, I suggest we use a message/sipfrag body excerpted
from the failure response, rather than copying headers from the
failure response into the 199's headers, or copying the entire failure
response as the body of the 199.
The syntax of sipfrag is unambiguous but extremely flexible (RFC
3420):
sipfrag = [ start-line ]
*message-header
[ CRLF [ message-body ] ]
Essentially, it is any subset of the headers of the response,
optionally followed by the body. This subsetting capability allows
small responses (e.g., omit the Via's, Call-Id, To, From,
Record-Route's, etc.), as well as making topology-hiding
straightforward.
It's also inherently extensible, in that if a proxy/UAS decides to add
more headers to the sipfrag, the UAC knows how to identify and/or
ignore them.
It's also terse, in that carrying any header from the response in a
message/sipfrag body is no longer than carrying it as a header of the
199 response.
Dale
_______________________________________________
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
