Re: [Serusers] [Serdev] loose_route behaviour, detecting single Route with myself

Ok, let me try to take a step back. This discussion is an example of why ser.cfg sometimes seems like black magic for most users. It's very complicated to get a generic config that works in most scenarios. What we really need to make sure is that people can use the recommended black magic in most cases, that it is intuitive how to add their own stuff, and that we make it difficult to "break".. phew... What would a "normal" user like to know in ser.cfg? 1. Do I need to process like an INVITE or do I t_relay? 2. How do I open or prevent relaying? Ex. I am sure quite a lot of configs will let an INVITE with a pre-loaded Route go through without authentication... I still feel that preloaded_route() and in_dialog() would be simpler to understand for most people. I agree with Martin that maybe having a separate function checking/removing/failing a pre-loaded route is cleaner than letting loose_route() do it. The problem of "non-2xx ACK with a preloaded route looks exactly the same then a 2xx ACK" is a corner-case, and I don't see any solution either, than the suggest uri param in the rr. So, could we automaticlly add the rr param if and only if the original INVITE is forwarded statelessly? The above functions could thus look for the rr param to detect the corner-case and thus behave consistently. g-) Martin Hoffmann wrote: