Hi Alex, Personally I think we should not reject PDU's that have this case. While it is pointless to send the same TLV multiple times in our case, we have established that this behavior is implicitly 'ok' by having Kannel accept these since the meta data patch (+- 7 years now). Changing this behavior would potentially cause issues for users with no real gain.
Thanks, Donald On 18 October 2016 at 13:18, Alexander Malysh <amal...@kannel.org> wrote: > Hi, > > good catch! But there is a question: should we really accept such wrong > PDUs or reject them? > IMHO rejecting those would be the correct behavior but I don't see in SMPP > spec that case described. > > Thanks, > Alexander Malysh > > ------------------------------ > *From*: Stipe Tolj <st...@kannel.org> <st...@kannel.org> > *Sent*: Monday, September 26, 2016 07:24 PM > *To*: > *Cc*: kannel_dev_mailinglist <devel@kannel.org> <devel@kannel.org> > *Subject*: Re: [PATCH] Memory leak in smpp_pdu.c > Am 24.09.2016 13:55, schrieb Rene Kluwen: > > +1 from me. > > yep, good catch Donald. > > +1 for it. > > If no objections, will commit. > > -- > Best Regards, > Stipe Tolj > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany > > Kannel Foundation tolj.org system architecture > http://www.kannel.org/ http://www.tolj.org/ > > stolj at kannel.org st at tolj.org > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Donald Jackson
