Am 15.04.2010 01:30, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
2010/4/14 Klaus Darilionklaus.mailinglists@pernau.at:
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.
Indeed. I didn't knew that. Shame on me :-)
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