Hi Daniel, agree, in this case i think $subs(...) or $sub(...) would make more sense, $subs(presententy) $subs(state) thoughts? ________________________________ From: sr-dev [sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.sip-router.org] on behalf of Daniel-Constantin Mierla [miconda(a)gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 6:54 AM To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [sr-dev] new pv for presence subscriptions Hello, it is ok, but I would go to create a new class of variables, because more can be needed in the future from presence details. I think you can go for $pres(uri) for this case, which will allow other $pres(xyz) in the future. Cheers, Daniel On 23/03/15 13:26, Luis Azedo wrote: Hi, we would like to add a new pv $presentity (or better name) to be set on presence handle_subscribe. the reason for this is that we need the presentity of the subscription to carry on further tasks in the script and the To header not always carries the right information on re-subscriptions. handle_subscribe will take the presentity from Request-URI if no to-tag is sent or it will take it from hash/db if to-tag is present. is that ok to proceed with implementation ? Best _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org<mailto:sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015 Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com