Subject: RE: Session timer response code (was RE: [SIP] Session timer cons ider ed harmful (was RE: draft-ietf-sip-session- timer: refresh rate))

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:44:13 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 3:22 PM
> To: 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; Steve Donovan
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Session timer response code (was RE: [SIP] Session timer
> consider ed harmful (was RE: draft-ietf-sip-session- timer: refresh
> rate))
> 
> 
> In all cases, there is a specific response code, that is used 
> > to guide the
> > client about what was wrong, and instruct it about what to 
> > resend. This case
> > is no different. I would therefore propose a new response 
> > code, 422 Session
> > Expiration Too Short, so that we also have:
> > 
> > 422 and Session-Expires
> 
> Alright... if we need this, don't we also need the same (or a similar)
> mechanism to indicate the same thing for "Expires" in a registration?

No, since there is no reason for the registrar to refuse the request. It
simply sets the expiration to whatever it wants, and returns it in the 200
OK. The problem is simpler because there are only two elements involved.
Session timer has a whole lot more, and so more complex coordination is
needed.

-Jonathan R.
---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip