Hi there,
so, without messing with the order/priority of the records, we can go
for the following options:
1) fork or not - use only first record (according to priority) or
use all of them;
2) if fork - what kind of fork: serial or parallel (both respecting
the priorities)
does everybody agree with this frame?
regards,
Bogdan
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> Maybe you can shed some light regarding the priority, what is it
good > for in enum case, how it should be used? In this way, can be
decided if > worth to implement these features. I have other things
in my todo list > in the next days, so I do not want to waste time
at all.
the owner of enum record may have decided that he wants to be first
contacted at a given uri and, if that fails, at another one, or more
than one uris simultaneously, etc. for that purpose enum NAPTR record
contains two fields, order and preference:
...
in my opinion, sip proxy should obey the wish of the enum record owner
as specified by these two fields. it is the same as with q values of
registered contacts. proxy should not mess around with them.
I agree. Thus, we need serial forking (like in LCR module with AVPs),
not parallel forking (current behaviour).
regards,
klaus
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
