Hello,
does anyone mind turnign sip warning off by default? It increases the reply and some consider publishing sensitive data over the net without a real need or benefit. It can be turned on from config if really wanted. In k was off by default.
Cheers, Daniel
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).
regards klaus
Am 14.04.2010 11:10, schrieb Daniel-Constantin Mierla:
Hello,
does anyone mind turnign sip warning off by default? It increases the reply and some consider publishing sensitive data over the net without a real need or benefit. It can be turned on from config if really wanted. In k was off by default.
Cheers, Daniel
+1
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
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).
regards klaus
Am 14.04.2010 11:10, schrieb Daniel-Constantin Mierla:
Hello,
does anyone mind turnign sip warning off by default? It increases the reply and some consider publishing sensitive data over the net without a real need or benefit. It can be turned on from config if really wanted. In k was off by default.
Cheers, Daniel
sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
2010/4/14 Klaus Darilion klaus.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. 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'"
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
2010/4/15 Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at:
Am 15.04.2010 01:30, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
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.
And replace 392 with 399. I fully agree.
-
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
Klaus Darilion -
Ovidiu Sas