At 10:34 AM -0500 2/23/17, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Thanks, Dale. It seems that it would be useful
for the draft to suggest (not require) that a
session rejected due to lack of
mutually-supported languages use 488 or 606, and
also include a Warning header field with the
suggested 308 code that the draft would register.
It seems to me that specifying how to reject the call is one of those
"SHOULD" things. Of course, the document would have to register 308 as
a warn-code.
The update I posted yesterday does register a new warn-code. I'm not
sure we need to use SHOULD instead of explicit advice for the SIP
response code. I doubt implementers would ignore the explicit advice
yet would honor a SHOULD.
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
An elephant is a mouse with an operating system.