Re: I-D Action:draft-kaplan-sipping-interop-bcp-02.txt

>> I still think that there should be a difference between:
>> * I can't help you and no one can (e.g. user is not online - 404)
>> * I can't help you do to some temporary issue (network - 503 or otherwise
>> - 480)
>> * I can't help you but feel free to try elsewhere (e.g. cannot find a
>> route to the target do to one of many reasons)

> I thought that the last category *is* what a 404 is for, while the first category is a 604. 

So I always understood the difference between these two to be that a 404 indicated more of a "temporary" problem (i.e. user is valid but not online) as in fact a Retry-after can be added to a 404, while a 604 was more of a permanent problem (i.e. no such user) - not exactly what I was looking for. 

> (well, I assume you don't actually mean "cannot find a route to the target" for the last category - because that is what a 480 is for :)

My problem with the 480 is the "temporary" aspect associated with it which implies that there is a point in trying again (possibly after a Retry-after interval). In cases where I cannot route your request not due to network capacity issues (5xx) but due to the lack of the necessary commercial relationships - I do not see how this header is appropriate.

> It's kind of a bold statement to say "I know you can't reach this user by any means anywhere", when the URI is an E.164 number.  

I wasn't really referring to E164 with regard to 404 - more of registry based AORs.

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