6 aug 2009 kl. 15.24 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:
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).
Why should it be translated???
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
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
