[Serusers] http / https in Userloc db
Jan Janak
jan at iptel.org
Wed Mar 2 13:42:03 CET 2005
The error message is not issued by lookup("location"), it is issued by
t_relay() when you try to forward the message to the HTTP URI.
It should be easy to write a function that would be called before
t_relay (or after lookup) and that would filter out URI schemes
unsupported by SER.
For the Request-URI you can do that from the script:
if (uri =~ "^http") {
do something
};
But that would not check additional branches used for parallel forking.
Jan.
On 02-03 13:08, Martin Koenig wrote:
> Jan,
>
> if any uri (according to RFC) is allowed in URI, then ser should not
> issue an error message on lookup("location"):
>
> Mar 2 12:58:17 s-p1 ser[1711]: ERROR: parse_uri: bad uri, state 0
> parsed: <http> (4) / <http://192.168.0.206:80> (23)
> Mar 2 12:58:17 s-p1 ser[1711]: ERROR: uri2proxy: bad_uri:
> http://192.168.0.206:80
> Mar 2 12:58:17 s-p1 ser[1711]: ERROR: parse_uri: bad uri, state 0
> parsed: <http> (4) / <https://192.168.0.206:443> (25)
> Mar 2 12:58:17 s-p1 ser[1711]: ERROR: uri2proxy: bad_uri:
> https://192.168.0.206:443
>
> Especially not a "bad_uri" error message, because it is not a bad uri
> indeed. Some debug-warning about ignoring this or that contact because
> it was not SIP/SIPS will do. What do you think?
>
> Either way, I think there is need for some cleanup.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
> Jan Janak schrieb:
>
> >On 02-03 10:32, Marian Dumitru wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi Martin,
> >>
> >>As far as I know it could be one of the new SNOM specific feature - it
> >>advertise the http location of the web configuration page. But if recall
> >>correctly, the header name should by WWW-Contact, not Contact.
> >>
> >>Anyhow, it will be a good idea for register to check the contact
> >>validity before inserting into usrloc.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That's one interesting question. What is a valid contact ? A regular
> > proxy would not be able to contact URI with http scheme, that's clear.
> > But that does not mean yet that the contact is not valid, because
> > RFC3261 allows any sort of URI to appear there.
> >
> > On the other hand, a redirect server would just take this URI, put it
> > into a 3xx response and send it back the the calling UA. If the calling
> > UA is unable to reach the called party, it might display the contents
> > of the HTTP URL or do some other magic.
> >
> > For that reason I think that there should be no limitation of what
> > gets into the user location database.
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> >
>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list