[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] SIP: Pineapple

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at digium.com
Thu Oct 22 08:07:01 CDT 2009

Tzafrir Cohen wrote:

> If there a reasonable chance that a potential broken device that needs
> such a backward-compatibility[1] option actually diverts from the
> standard in all fronts? Or would it make sense to split it into several
> sub-options (technically: make it a bit field)?

In the 5+ years I've been involved with Asterisk, I cannot remember any
case where someone enabled pedantic mode and then had to disable it
because a device was unable to interoperate with Asterisk. With that
said, though, the vast majority of Asterisk systems never have pedantic
mode enabled, so that's not a very representative sample of the possible
endpoint problems we might experience.

Given what 'pedantic' currently controls, I really can't come up with
any scenarios where an endpoint could expect us to work properly by
*not* doing the pedantic checking/parsing. All of the pedantic toggles
just increase Asterisk's RFC compliance.

Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
skype: kpfleming | jabber: kpfleming at digium.com
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

More information about the asterisk-dev mailing list