Re: [Slim] Review of draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]