---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4328/
---
(Updated Jan. 16, 2015, 3:13 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
OEJ == Olle E Johansson reviewbo...@asterisk.org writes:
OEJ For dual stack support, we need to open two TCP or TLS connections
OEJ at the same time.
I assume that means for a new call origination.
If it is the result of an incoming sip session, and the rtp is expected
to avoid the asterisk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4328/#review14193
---
Surely there must be some NAPTR support in there.
We do need
On Jan. 15, 2015, 8:43 a.m., Olle E Johansson wrote:
You write that SRV is done if the URI is not IP. Check that SRV is not done
if there's any port in the URI. If there's a port in the URI, the hostname
is to be used for A/ lookups. If there's no port, go for NAPTR, then
SRV.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4328/#review14194
---
You write that SRV is done if the URI is not IP. Check that
On Jan. 15, 2015, 8:43 a.m., Olle E Johansson wrote:
You write that SRV is done if the URI is not IP. Check that SRV is not done
if there's any port in the URI. If there's a port in the URI, the hostname
is to be used for A/ lookups. If there's no port, go for NAPTR, then
SRV.
On Jan. 15, 2015, 9:43 a.m., Olle E Johansson wrote:
You write that SRV is done if the URI is not IP. Check that SRV is not done
if there's any port in the URI. If there's a port in the URI, the hostname
is to be used for A/ lookups. If there's no port, go for NAPTR, then
SRV.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4328/#review14190
---
Ship it!
As far as I'm concerned this is looking much better,
On Jan. 13, 2015, 9:48 a.m., jbigelow wrote:
* Under 'URI Parsing' it states: For the purposes of transport selection
the transport parameter is examined. I suggest clarifing that the
transport parameter being spoke of is the 'transport' parameter for
endpoint types in pjsip.conf.
On Jan. 13, 2015, 3:48 p.m., jbigelow wrote:
* Under 'URI Parsing' it states: For the purposes of transport selection
the transport parameter is examined. I suggest clarifing that the
transport parameter being spoke of is the 'transport' parameter for
endpoint types in pjsip.conf.
On Jan. 12, 2015, 10:50 p.m., Mark Michelson wrote:
* The transport type from above is used to determine which SRV record to
look up. This means that the original URI *must* include the transport type
for TCP and TLS types.
What if the URI is a SIPS URI? Does that have any bearing on
On Jan. 13, 2015, 3:48 p.m., jbigelow wrote:
* Under 'URI Parsing' it states: For the purposes of transport selection
the transport parameter is examined. I suggest clarifing that the
transport parameter being spoke of is the 'transport' parameter for
endpoint types in pjsip.conf.
On Jan. 13, 2015, 3:48 p.m., jbigelow wrote:
* Under 'URI Parsing' it states: For the purposes of transport selection
the transport parameter is examined. I suggest clarifing that the
transport parameter being spoke of is the 'transport' parameter for
endpoint types in pjsip.conf.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4328/
---
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
Repository: Asterisk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4328/#review14156
---
This does NOT currently attempt to reuse any existing
On Jan. 12, 2015, 3:50 p.m., rnewton wrote:
This does NOT currently attempt to reuse any existing connections. A new
one will always be created. This is an issue being tracked at URL.
I think you forgot a URL there.
Fixed.
- Joshua
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4328/#review14158
---
Ship it!
It looks detailed enough for me.
One thing I might
On Jan. 12, 2015, 5:32 p.m., rnewton wrote:
It looks detailed enough for me.
One thing I might change would be some of the headings and the page title.
You have a couple sub-headings reading PJSIP Transport Selection,
whereas the others do not mention PJSIP. When you find one
On Jan. 12, 2015, 5:32 p.m., rnewton wrote:
It looks detailed enough for me.
One thing I might change would be some of the headings and the page title.
You have a couple sub-headings reading PJSIP Transport Selection,
whereas the others do not mention PJSIP. When you find one
19 matches
Mail list logo
