Hi, Ovidus... Just to let You know that multipart SDP are generated by Cisco GWs (at least 3810 and 5300 models). I don't know there types, I'm not good in SDP, but seems to be one for codecs and other for facilities.
If You whana a hand, maybe I can help You in this tests... Edson >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Ovidiu Sas >Sent: sexta-feira, 10 de agosto de 2007 11:39 >To: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu >Cc: devel@openser.org >Subject: Re: [OpenSER-Devel] Request for comments: sdpparser: module >orintegrated into the core > >Hi Bogdan, > >I think that multi-part body parsing should be part of the general >message parsing. >The SDP specific parser will be under ./parser/sdp >There's nothing preventing proper support for multi-part body. > >I don't have a SIP UA that generates multi-part body to test how it >will work ... > > >Regards, >Ovidiu Sas > >On 8/10/07, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Ovidiu, >> >> are there any plans to support multi-part body? in case SDP in one on >> the parts..... >> >> Regards, >> Bogdan >> >> Ovidiu Sas wrote: >> > Hi Cesc, >> > >> > I just ported some existing parsing functions from the nathelper >> > module (just to minimize the impact to the other modules) and enhance >> > them. The idea was to follow the openser generic parser. >> > >> > >> > Ovidiu >> > >> > On 8/8/07, Cesc Santa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> If I may have a say ... I would include this also in the core. And as >> >> pointed by Bogdan, SDP is signalling also ... so I would not see it so >bad >> >> having the parser functions in the core with the option of the modules >> >> modifying the SDP. >> >> >> >> BTW, Ovidiiu ... in your email I read that you are creating the parser >... >> >> from scratch? Would not it be a good idea to hunt for an already >existing >> >> SDP library and integrate it? >> >> >> >> Cesc >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8/8/07, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Henning, >> >>> >> >>> SDP is also signalling part (for media) and we are evaluation _only_ >> >>> parsing functions, not functions to manipulate and do SDP changes. >> >>> >> >>> currently there are 2 modules (nathelper and mediaproxy) parsing SDP >and >> >>> there is an intense demand for other SDP related functionalities >(like >> >>> being able to investigate SDP from script, etc); so makes no sense to >> >>> have n modules, each implementing a parser. >> >>> >> >>> We can have a parser in core and the modules will use it for whatever >> >>> specific purposes. >> >>> >> >>> If you make the parser a module, it will be rather a library than a >> >>> module and it will create extra inter-module dependencies that we >> >>> complicate thinks even more. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks and regards, >> >>> Bogdan >> >>> >> >>> Henning Westerholt wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi Ovidiu, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> If this will be a collection of functions for parsing, I see no >reason >> >>>>> for not trying to include them in core. But for such a decision, >more >> >>>>> info will be needed. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> Hello, >> >>>> >> >>>> integrating SDP parser functionality into the core would be the >start >> >>>> >> >> for >> >> >> >>>> providing more and more SDP and media stream related functions in >> >>>> >> >> OpenSER. >> >> >> >>>> I think we should try to stay on focus. >> >>>> >> >>>> - OpenSER is a multi-functional, multi-purpose SIP server: router, >> >>>> >> >> switch, >> >> >> >>>> registrar, application server, redirect server, gateway, etc.. >> >>>> - OpenSER is only about signaling, but there are media adds-on >> >>>> >> >>>> (some quotes of a VON talk of Bogdan) >> >>>> >> >>>> In my opinion we're quite good in this area. But we've already >enough >> >>>> >> >> problems >> >> >> >>>> to support SIP and all the strange implementations out there. I >don't >> >>>> >> >> think >> >> >> >>>> its a good move to add to much SDP to our problem set. >> >>>> >> >>>> So i think a module implementation of a sdp parser would make more >> >>>> >> >> sense. >> >> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >>>> >> >>>> Henning >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Devel mailing list >> >>> Devel@openser.org >> >>> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel >> >>> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Devel mailing list >> >> Devel@openser.org >> >> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Devel mailing list >Devel@openser.org >http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
