On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Juha Heinanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes: > > > 2) add new feature to manage/control C timer (like onreply route change > > support, different routes for timeout and failures, etc).. > > > > Is this commonly agreed? > > as long some backwards compatibility is retained, i.e., it should not be > mandatory to split current failure route into failure and timeout route, > for example.
Adding a timeout_route doesn't imply that the backward compatibility will be broken. A timeout_route will deal with a timer, and not with a message (regardless if it's a locally generated one or a received one) like failure_route. >From my prospective, if timer C fires, the first hook will be in timeout_route where the administrator can decide to re-arm the timer or not. The default action (i.e. no action taken in timeout_route), of course, will be to let the timer fire, and this it will generate a local 408 reply that will be handled in the failure_route, just like today. Like this, backward compatibility is fully retained. just my 2c Regards, Ovidiu Sas _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.openser.org http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
