On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
On 11/21/08, Michael Giagnocavo <mgg@giagnocavo.net> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: freeswitch-dev-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-dev-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org ] On Behalf Of Kristian Kielhofner
Basic tenet for any RFC:
"Be strict in what you send and liberal in what you accept."
This "robustness principle" doesn't work too well for such applications. (See: Browser HTML/CSS compat hacks, but at least there you had the justification of having human authors for content.)
Too bad this nonsense is perpetuated. Check the "SIP Torture Tests" (RFC 4475) for admittance on how screwed up the parsing is, and how they think implementations should just try to "infer" the intention. So not only do you have to deal with pointless parsing of _valid_ messages, but it'd be "good" to go write a heuristical parser that guesses, too.
Yea, many different implementations, all "inferring" intention should just work dandy.
-Michael
This thread /was/ about a questionable/superfluous double quote in a URI parameter. Postel's Law fits this situation quite well.
I might be willing to spend my time ranting about the IETF and any questionable RFCs if there were a reasonable alternative.
Suggestions?
For the record, we did correct this issue in svn trunk Mike