On 01/08/2009 02:48 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > 2009/1/8 Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.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... >> > > 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 _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
