On 01/08/2009 02:48 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2009/1/8 Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@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