Subject: [sipcore] New draft extending Reason header

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:06:26 +0200

Hi,

We've submitted a draft, which extends the Reason header, allowing
proxies to indicate an application-specific reason in the SIP message.

The draft can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mohali-sipcore-reason-extension-application
-00.txt

We think that it would be usefull to have this kind of
application-specific reasons especially in the History-Info header when
a call has been retargeted by an Application.

We would like to get some feedback on the proposed I-D and a
confirmation of interest from the IETF community (SIPCORE).
 
Best Regards,

Marianne Mohali

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:40:56 -0500

Hi Marianne,

I haven't reviewed the draft in detail, however, I also had the same
thought with regards to the usefulness of these Reasons for
History-Info when I saw the draft earlier today.  I think we might
also be able to use this for the parallel forking issue ( #20 ) in
that we could add these reasons to the hi-entries to which the request
didn't terminate (i.e., the legs that are Canceled after the 200ok is
sent for the request that successfully terminated) rather than leaving
the entries with no Reason and having it be inferred.

I will review the draft in detail later (once I finish all these
4244bis changes).

Thanks,
Mary.

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:06 PM,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:03:48 +0200

Hi Mary,

The need you describe is to add a Reason header without (actually "before") receiving the explicit SIP response (so, the status code) from the UA.
This need is not exactly the same that the one I intend to address but the common point is to use the Reason header without receiving an explicit SIP response. 
We could, may be, find a way to address both needs but I don't know how. Let's think about it...

Regards,
Marianne  

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 13 octobre 2010 21:41
À : MOHALI Marianne RD-CORE-ISS
Cc : [email-masked]; CHATRAS Bruno RD-CORE-ISS
Objet : Re: [sipcore] New draft extending Reason header

Hi Marianne,

I haven't reviewed the draft in detail, however, I also had the same thought with regards to the usefulness of these Reasons for History-Info when I saw the draft earlier today.  I think we might also be able to use this for the parallel forking issue ( #20 ) in that we could add these reasons to the hi-entries to which the request didn't terminate (i.e., the legs that are Canceled after the 200ok is sent for the request that successfully terminated) rather than leaving the entries with no Reason and having it be inferred.

I will review the draft in detail later (once I finish all these 4244bis changes).

Thanks,
Mary.

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:06 PM,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
> application-specific reasons especially in the History-Info header 
> when a call has been retargeted by an Application.
>