Re: [RFC 4235 & draft-kuthan-sip-derive] 481 "Call doesn't exist" for initial SUBSCRIBE ?

Perhaps I'm being misled by the subject line. I thought this discussion 
arose from the DERIVE work -- for which "what a UA *should* do" is 
highly irrelevant. The only thing that matters for DERIVE is "what 
deployed UAs *actually* do." And given that *we* don't even know the 
answer to the *first* question, I would put my money on betting the 
answer to the second one is all over the map.


But, if we're having the argument...

Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
> On that basis, I can see a 403 response if the dialog id isn't valid 
> and the subscriber has no intrinsic authorization to subscribe.
>
> I understand the reasoning behind 481 but I am a *bit* troubled by it. 
> It is a distinct semantic for 481, though one that is unambiguous. But 
> 481 already has three distinct meanings, so adding another doesn't 
> seem like a great idea.

I agree with Paul, with one minor revision: I would change the final 
clause of his final sentence to "...so adding another seems like a 
really, really bad idea."

/a
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip