Re: [sipcore] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sipcore-status-unwanted-04.txt> (A SIP Response Code for Unwanted Calls) to Proposed Standard

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

 



On 21 Mar 2017, at 12:05, Alan Johnston wrote:

If you are proposing using a SIP response code 603 and with a header field Decline-Type: spam, the problem with this is that in SIP, failure responses (non-2xx) are delivered hop-by-hop and not end-to-end. This means that although the first hop (proxy) will get the Decline-Type:spam header field,
any future hops will not.  Instead, they will just get the 603.

A different response code such as 666 will be conveyed end-to-end, so every
proxy and the calling UA will get the semantics.

Adam walked me through the last few paragraphs of 3261 section 6. It's not clear in that text whether proxies will or won't preserve the headers, but if they don't, I expect that's a showstopper for my proposal. That's a bummer, because I do think the status code is going to cause future heartburn. However, if you SIP folks conclude that the header will not get through proxies (and I will take you all at your word if you so conclude), and this mechanism does need to survive proxies (which I suspect it does), then I think we're stuck with the status code.

If so, I will happily return to you all to your discussion of whether particular numbers do or do not belong in IETF specifications. :-) (For the record, I thought 451 set a poor precedent, but I'm a curmudgeon.)

pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478




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