Hi, I have a doubt related to CPL <otherwise> and <not-present>. Take a look
to this simple CPL:
<cpl>
<incoming>
<string-switch field="subject">
<string contains="hello">
<reject status="reject" reason="Subject is hello" />
</string>
<otherwise>
<location url="sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" />
<proxy />
</location>
</otherwise>
</string-switch>
</incoming>
</cpl>
Now imagine an INVITE arriving to the proxy in those 3 cases:
a)
-----------------------------
INVITE
Subject: hello user
-----------------------------
The call is rejected since:
<string contains="hello">
OK
b)
-----------------------------
INVITE
Subject: bye bye
-----------------------------
There is a Subject but it doesn't contain "hello" so <otherwise> is runned:
<location url="sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" />
OK
c)
-----------------------------
INVITE (no Subject header)
-----------------------------
No "Subject" header. Note that there is not <not-present> section in the above
CPL. So, what should occur in this case?
In my opinion, <otherwise> should be runned but OpenSer proxy doesn't do it so
default action is triggered (OpenSer logic continues out of CPL)
Because of it I open a bug in OpenSer:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743020&aid=1857636&group_id=139143
RFC 3880 says:
------------------------------------------------------
4. Switches
[...]
The output "otherwise", which MUST be the last
output specified if it is present, matches if no
other condition matched.
If no condition matches and no "otherwise" output
was present in the script, the default script
behavior is taken.
------------------------------------------------------
So I consider the OpenSer actual behaviour a bug since "otherwise" should be
matched when "Subject" header doesn't exist because **no other condition
matched**.
Default script should not be taken since **no condition matches
and "otherwise" output DOES be present**.
This issue causes a problem in case of matching a "Subject" header, since I
must clone <not-present> and <otherwise> contents.
So I'd need to know which should be the correct behaviour in this case in
order to report to OpenSer developers.
Thanks for any explanation. Regards.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
