14 Apr
2010
14 Apr
'10
12:10 p.m.
Hello,
does anyone mind turnign sip warning off by default? It increases the
reply and some consider publishing sensitive data over the net without a
real need or benefit. It can be turned on from config if really wanted.
In k was off by default.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla * http://www.asipto.com/ *
http://twitter.com/miconda *
http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielconstantinmierla
14 Apr
14 Apr
3:12 p.m.
I second turning it off.
Further, IMO the header should be renamend to something like
X-Debuginfo: .......
IIRC "Warning" has often confused beginners (me too).
regards
klaus
Am 14.04.2010 11:10, schrieb Daniel-Constantin Mierla:
Hello,
does anyone mind turnign sip warning off by default? It increases the
reply and some consider publishing sensitive data over the net without a
real need or benefit. It can be turned on from config if really wanted.
In k was off by default.
Cheers,
Daniel
3:15 p.m.
+1
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Klaus Darilion
<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> wrote:
I second turning it off.
Further, IMO the header should be renamend to something like
X-Debuginfo: .......
IIRC "Warning" has often confused beginners (me too).
regards
klaus
Am 14.04.2010 11:10, schrieb Daniel-Constantin Mierla:
Hello,
does anyone mind turnign sip warning off by default? It increases the
reply and some consider publishing sensitive data over the net without a
real need or benefit. It can be turned on from config if really wanted.
In k was off by default.
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
15 Apr
15 Apr
2:30 a.m.
2010/4/14 Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
I second turning it off.
Further, IMO the header should be renamend to something like
X-Debuginfo: .......
IIRC "Warning" has often confused beginners (me too).
"Warning" is an already standarized header in RFC 3261. Does the added
debugging information conform to the grammar of the Warning header?
Examples:
Warning: 307 isi.edu "Session parameter 'foo' not understood"
Warning: 301 isi.edu "Incompatible network address type 'E.164'"
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
11:24 a.m.
Am 15.04.2010 01:30, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2010/4/14 Klaus
Darilion<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
Indeed. I didn't knew that. Shame on me :-)
I second turning it off.
Further, IMO the header should be renamend to something like
X-Debuginfo: .......
IIRC "Warning" has often confused beginners (me too).
"Warning" is an already standarized header in RFC 3261. Does the added
debugging information conform to the grammar of the Warning header?
Examples:
Warning: 307 isi.edu "Session parameter 'foo' not understood"
Warning: 301 isi.edu "Incompatible network address type 'E.164'"
Almost, e.g:
Warning: 392 213.192.59.75:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=3882
req_src_ip=83.136.33.3 req_src_port=43356 in_uri=sip:iptel.org
out_uri=sip:iptel.org via_cnt==1"
Code 392 is not defined by IANA
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters), IMO changing it to 399
would be more standard conform.
As a conclusion, I second turning it off by default, but naming it
"Warning" is OK as it is a standardized header for such purposes.
regards
klaus
12:22 p.m.
2010/4/15 Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
Am 15.04.2010 01:30, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
> Does the added debugging information conform to the grammar of the Warning header?
> Examples:
>
> Warning: 307 isi.edu "Session parameter 'foo' not
understood"
> Warning: 301 isi.edu "Incompatible network address type
'E.164'"
Almost, e.g:
Warning: 392 213.192.59.75:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=3882
req_src_ip=83.136.33.3 req_src_port=43356 in_uri=sip:iptel.org
out_uri=sip:iptel.org via_cnt==1"
Code 392 is not defined by IANA
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters), IMO changing it to 399
would be more standard conform.
As a conclusion, I second turning it off by default, but naming it "Warning"
is OK as it is a standardized header for such purposes.
And replace 392 with 399. I fully agree.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
5339
days inactive
5340
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Klaus Darilion -
Ovidiu Sas