2009/8/6 Jan Janak <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo<[email protected]> wrote: >> 2009/8/6 Klaus Darilion <[email protected]>: >>>> 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". > > Why not? > >> AFAIK the only URI's to implement wouuld be: >> - SIP >> - SIPS >> - TEL >> - URN > > Why URN yes and HTTP not?
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). But if SR impements HTTP perfect, then I'll configure a SR as HTTP proxy and load balancer XDD -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
