6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
9:24 a.m.
2009/8/6 Jan Janak <jan(a)ryngle.com>om>:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Iñaki Baz
Castillo<ibc(a)aliax.net> wrote:
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
<ibc(a)aliax.net>
2009/8/6 Klaus Darilion
<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
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?
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 AFAIK the only URI's to implement wouuld be:
- SIP
- SIPS
- TEL
- URN
Why URN yes and HTTP not?