Anders Kristensen writes:
>Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing if implementations at the bakeoffs
>at least generated warning messages (does anyone use the Warning:
>header?) or something like that.
I agree wholeheartedly. For example, I saw implementations that would
spit out a "Malformed Date: header" error message on the callee's screen,
but continue the call anyway (instead of returning a 404).
In fact, I wouldn't even mind seeing stuff like:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFO sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Length: 45
Warning: Malformed date header in request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm adding code to our client Real Soon Now that will render
messages with displayable Content-Types for the user. I was
particularly impressed by some implementations at this bakeoff
that send back messages like:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP/2.0 400 Malformed SDP
To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Length: 45
Could not parse m= line: no codecs listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Although, admittedly, they probably shouldn't have done it under the
circumstances, since I didn't indicate that I accept text/plain...)
--
Adam Roach, Ericsson Inc. | Ph: +1 972 583 7594 | 1010 E. Arapaho, MS L-04
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fax: +1 972 669 0154 | Richardson, TX 75081 USA
