Talk:List of SIP response codes

7xx codes
I am a voip guy, not a wikipedian, so i will let the editing be. But the Siemens "7xx" response codes seem misplaced. They are not part of the standard ietf rfcs, they are not industry standard. They should not be here. You dont see the american ammendments in an article about German law.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.140.4 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding detailed descriptions
I've started adding detailed descriptions of the response codes, using RFC 3261 as the source material. However, this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia, so I'm sure I've messed up in some way. As such I've only done the 1xx section for now, and will allow time for someone to revert/fix my edit if it is not done correctly. 98.173.30.120 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Aiming for WP:FL and dubious editorial decisions
I'm hoping to get this article to featured list status, and that's currently looking like a one-person effort. That's simply because I'm the only person editing, however; I'm not attempting to own the article. Other editors' contributions would most definitely be welcomed!

In order to reach WP:FL status, I'm trying to get everything into a consistent state. Here's a bunch of relatively arbitrary decisions I've made in the name of consistency, and my reasoning for them:


 * Use definition lists for formatting detail. An IP editor started this precedent, and I think it looks good. Notably, I think this is more readable than using tables, and I'm not aware of any other sensible option.
 * Link to specific sections of RFCs. I believe linking citations to specific locations within a source is a de facto requirement for WP:FL, and may even be de jure. Linking to sections seemed more useful to me than page numbers for RFCs.
 * Addendum: when the relevant section is longer than a page, I'm referencing the page instead. —me_and 23:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For RFCs that need to be cited multiple times (notably RFC 3261), have one citation and link to specific sections using rp. I think this produces a neater references section than the only alternatives I can see: listing full references every time, or having a list of RFCs with full citations, then each inline citation providing a short reference to the RFC and a section number.
 * Use § rather than (for eg) "sec" in rp. I think the added brevity is worth the slightly obscure symbol when it's being used inline.
 * Don't use "nosec" in cite IETF to use § in the full citations. This breaks the citation template's section linking, and the brevity is less necessary in the references section.
 * List RFC editors as such in the citation templates, even though it breaks the formatting slightly. I think the broken formatting there is minor, and it's a bug in the template that should be resolved At Some Point™. We shouldn't do it wrong here because things are going wrong elsewhere.

Here are some things that still need doing before the article will be ready to be looked at for WP:FL:


 * Finish providing full citations. Every response code now has a citation, but some are just inline links to the RFC. (ticked off —me_and 15:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Update the descriptions to be consistent in terms of tense ("Servers can send this…" vs "Indicates the request…" vs "Server has…" etc).
 * Use full sentences, ending with a full-stop, for each description.
 * Add summaries of the code groups (ie 1xx, 2xx, etc) to the corresponding sections. (Added —me_and 23:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Lose the Category:Articles with unsourced statements categorization. (Added —me_and 23:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)) (Ticked off —me_and 17:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC))

I'm intending to keep the above lists up-to-date with the article state. I'll sign any changes for clarity, and since the middle of the above lists is not really a great place to discuss, I'll avoid updating the list where I don't think there's consensus. Other editors should feel free to do the same.

(On consensus for the above changes, I'm assuming WP:SILENCE applies. Thus if I make a change, update the above, and there's disagreement, I'll update the above again and reference wherever the discussion is taking place.)

—me_and 19:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you still interested in this? Zell Faze (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

yes 105.112.166.135 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)