6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
9:09 p.m.
6 aug 2009 kl. 15.24 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2009/8/6 Jan Janak <jan(a)ryngle.com>om>:
Why should it be
translated???
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Iñaki Baz
Castillo<ibc(a)aliax.net>
wrote:
According to some exotic RFC, a proxy should handle a URN URI and
translate it into a SIP URI (or route the request to a predefined
proxy which handles it). But no specification defines how a HTTP URI
should be translated into a SIP URI (or other kind of URI). 2009/8/6 Klaus Darilion
<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
Why not?
> At the same time, we could implement support
for other URI's,
> like XMPP
> since we have an xmpp gateway.
Yes, should be generic as RFC 3261 which allows all kind of URIs
Well, I can't agree. A SIP proxy shouldn't implement a HTTP URI in a
request, or a mailto URI, even if RFC 3261 says "any URI". AFAIK the only URI's to implement wouuld be:
- SIP
- SIPS
- TEL
- URN
Why URN yes and HTTP not?
But if SR impements HTTP perfect, then I'll configure a SR as HTTP
proxy and load balancer XDD
No, but there's a lot of stuff now being implemented in HTTP requests
in regards to SIP conferencing and SIMPLE.
/O