Bring on SNAP, baby! On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Kristian Kielhofner < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/2/08, Anthony Minessale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Naturally, either way is stupid. > > Word. > > > The whole idea of putting the transport in a uri param is equally stupid > to > > using 2 different protocol names but since SIP is the descendant of http > it > > they decided to stick with the stupidity of http/https and have sip/sips > > which is almost as if it was designed to break all software trying to > keep > > up with url syntax. > > Too late now. > > > If they are going to insist on using text params you'd think something > like > > transport=foo;security=tls would be even *more* flexable in case > alternate > > methods to encrypt crop up. > > I can agree with you here... > > URI parameters in SIP have come to be the catch all for random junk > that doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. Note that "random junk" > includes everything from transport, to number portability, to CICs, to > ISUP-OLI and on. > > Even in my world setting up proxies, UAs, etc to parse out the > various crap people put in SIP URI params is a hassle. A big one. > > What a mess!!! > > > This is, of course, the first step into a lengthy 12 hour discussion on > how > > stupid SIP and url/text based > > protocols are. > > I like them but I'm weird. > > > I dare someone to crank up the pcap on a box doing SIP presence for 20 > > phones and "read" > > the 1200 byte messages with all kinds of hyeroglyphic url syntax and > > embedded xml payloads and write > > up a paper on how much "sense" it makes to have it be "readable". > > I do it all the time. I think it's quite usable. ngrep provides a > small enough binary and the ability to match on text. Certainly > easier to use, especially on embedded systems without the luxury of > dedicated protocol decoders. With a simple ngrep binary I can debug > any text based protocol I understand. > > Of course, turn on TLS and see how useful *any* of these tools are... > > The core SIP spec and authors can't be blamed for the various junk > people have been putting in SIP bodies. If what's going on in the > real world is any indication, that ship sailed long ago. At this > point as long as implementations can at least handle multi-part > sensibly and everyone specifies the correct MIME type I don't really > care. > > Even nastier examples abound - embedded, encapsulated ISUP! How > about GTD? What about Linksys phones using SIP INFO to serve > directories? Man I could go on and on... > > I'm not going to write a paper about it but I don't think it's that > bad. Maybe I'm not just weird; maybe I'm a masochist! :) > > > PS > > > > supposedly sofia can support sctp, > > someone should try it. > > That would be cool. For anyone wanting to try, various SERs support > SCTP. Cisco gateways do too. > > -- > Kristian Kielhofner > http://blog.krisk.org > http://www.submityoursip.com > http://www.astlinux.org > http://www.star2star.com > > _______________________________________________ > Freeswitch-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > http://www.freeswitch.org >
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
