[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sip-implementors
Subject:    Re: [Sip-implementors] Proposal for a mew SIP 4xx Error code
From:       Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat () alum ! mit ! edu>
Date:       2019-10-29 16:52:29
Message-ID: 219e873a-2896-bf40-fae4-b5b9289f2d53 () alum ! mit ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

Ranjit,

I see you cross posted this proposal to multiple lists. There is large 
overlap in readership of those lists, so this creates a mess. I'm going 
to reply here, because this is the best place for such a query.

Please see inline below.

On 10/29/19 12:05 AM, Ranjit Avasarala wrote:
> Hello all
> 
> Many times I experienced scenarios where SIP requests (e.g. INVITE, PUBLISH
> or PRACK or any other) have either invalid parameters in the header or a
> particular header is missing in the request or the header value is
> incomplete.  Some e.gs are
> 
>     - SIP Route header in INVITE contains additional "lr" parameter.
>     Ideally, "lr" parameter needs to be associated with a particular route -
>     i.e. sip URI
>     - the Accept header is missing in SIP PUBLISH
>     - the Allow header misses UPDATE method
>     - .....  many more
> 
> Currently, in all the above cases the SIP Proxy server that receives the
> request, responds with a 400 Bad Request.
> Though 400 Bad Request is acceptable given that there is some issue in the
> SIP request, a more detailed error would be more useful - as sometimes
> interpreting 400 Bad Request is harder

You can use the Reason-Phrase in the 400 response to clarify what you 
are complaining about. This should be sufficient to help a developer to 
diagnose the issue and fix it. It won't be sufficient to all a 
preprogrammed reaction in the UAC, but I don't see that as a reasonable 
expectation for problems like this.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> E.g.
> a  4xx Invalid header/parameter may be more appropriate with reason
> E.g. if there is additional "lr" parameter in SIP INVITE, then the proxy
> can return a 4xx Invalid Header/parameter with Reason:  SIP code=4xx;
> Text="Invalid lr parameter in Route header"
> 
> Let me know your thoughts on if this proposal can be taken forward as an
> Internet draft.
> 
> Thank you
> Ranjit
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
> 

_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]