> "MJ" == Matthew Jordan writes:
MJ> In order to keep the contributor license agreement stuff sane, the
MJ> Asterisk bug tracker please.
I thought I remembered that.
MJ> And thanks! Sounds like a useful contribution.
https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-24575
-JimC
--
James
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:58 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "MM" == Mark Michelson writes:
>
> MM> For res_pjsip, we're using the mechanisms that PJSIP exposes in its
> MM> TLS transport. Since a CA path option is not exposed, the option to
> MM> provide one in pjsip.conf does not exist. If you wan
> "MM" == Mark Michelson writes:
MM> For res_pjsip, we're using the mechanisms that PJSIP exposes in its
MM> TLS transport. Since a CA path option is not exposed, the option to
MM> provide one in pjsip.conf does not exist. If you want to provide a
MM> patch, that's totally fine, but the patch
On 12/01/2014 09:24 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
On 01 Dec 2014, at 16:21, Mark Michelson wrote:
On 11/25/2014 02:46 PM, James Cloos wrote:
Now that 13 has hit sid, I've started converting to pjsip.
Chan_sip supports one's preference of a ca path or ca file, but
res_pjsip does not. At least
On 01 Dec 2014, at 16:21, Mark Michelson wrote:
> On 11/25/2014 02:46 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> Now that 13 has hit sid, I've started converting to pjsip.
>>
>> Chan_sip supports one's preference of a ca path or ca file, but
>> res_pjsip does not. At least not on the 13 branch.
>>
>> Is that
On 11/25/2014 02:46 PM, James Cloos wrote:
Now that 13 has hit sid, I've started converting to pjsip.
Chan_sip supports one's preference of a ca path or ca file, but
res_pjsip does not. At least not on the 13 branch.
Is that intentional, or an oversight?
If not intentional, will a patch to fi
Now that 13 has hit sid, I've started converting to pjsip.
Chan_sip supports one's preference of a ca path or ca file, but
res_pjsip does not. At least not on the 13 branch.
Is that intentional, or an oversight?
If not intentional, will a patch to fix be accepted for 13,
only for trunk?
-JimC
