On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Juha Heinanen jh@tutpro.com wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
- 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