15 Apr
2010
15 Apr
'10
11:24 a.m.
Am 15.04.2010 01:30, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2010/4/14 Klaus
Darilion<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at>at>:
Indeed. I didn't knew that. Shame on me :-)
I second turning it off.
Further, IMO the header should be renamend to something like
X-Debuginfo: .......
IIRC "Warning" has often confused beginners (me too).
"Warning" is an already standarized header in RFC 3261. Does the added
debugging information conform to the grammar of the Warning header?
Examples:
Warning: 307 isi.edu "Session parameter 'foo' not understood"
Warning: 301 isi.edu "Incompatible network address type 'E.164'"
Almost, e.g:
Warning: 392 213.192.59.75:5060 "Noisy feedback tells: pid=3882
req_src_ip=83.136.33.3 req_src_port=43356 in_uri=sip:iptel.org
out_uri=sip:iptel.org via_cnt==1"
Code 392 is not defined by IANA
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters), IMO changing it to 399
would be more standard conform.
As a conclusion, I second turning it off by default, but naming it
"Warning" is OK as it is a standardized header for such purposes.
regards
klaus