8 Jan
2009
8 Jan
'09
2:50 p.m.
On 01/08/2009 02:48 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/1/8 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com>om>:
I've seen some URI's containing headers in some hyper-xtra-exotic
drafts that will be NEVER implemented, of course.
They are things like a server receiving a request with a special body
full of URI's containing headers. So the server creates a request for
each URI and adds the URI headers as request headers.
This pathetic feature (written by somebody obviously not interested in
its implementation but in writting a paper in which his name appears)
would be never a task for a proxy but for a exotic server.
:-) -- I guess it has created a good market for SIP conformance testing
tools...
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
Personally I would never implement exotic URI headers. This is
something that should be dropped from RFC 3261 ASAP.
Those super-exotic "features" are fully useless and add
extra-complexity. Why should a header be matched when comparing an
URI?
Fully agree. I haven't seen URIs with headers, but they might be
somewhere
inside IMS/Telco routing...