As you mentioned the original reason for this module was not IMS but rather
to support some new features, in particular forking. It is not
particularly specific to IMS.
Unfortunately we have not managed to merge with the normal dialog module as
we had originally intended.
I do hope at some point we manage to merge the two modules so each can
benefit for the others fixes but think it will be quite an endeavour.
Having said this I have no issue with renaming the module or explicitly
explaining in the documentation if it is causing any confusion.
Let's see if the other IMS devs agree.
On 15 Dec 2015 2:52 PM, "Daniel-Constantin Mierla" <miconda(a)gmail.com>
I am under the impression that the name dialog_ng creates confusion out
there and some people are using it instead of the classic dialog module.
Although it was started with goals of reworking dialog module with a
different concept (which was discussed mainly by some guys that
afterwards changed their job to non-voip area), dialog_ng ended up to be
tailored for IMS needs.
Probably we should do that refactoring of the dialog module, but
meanwhile dialog_ng doesn't refect that and some people are confused by
the current naming of the two modules.
Practically is more about convenience at this moment and if IMS
developers and users think it is not going to be a big overhead for
their deployments to be upgraded, I can take care to rename it. So,
while general opinion matters, I think we should see first what IMS devs
I am personally not affected that much, so I am fine to keep it like it
is now -- in that case, proper notes should be added to documentation,
stating that dialog_ng must be used only for IMS (or when the config
writer knows very well what she/he is doing).
Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com
sr-dev mailing list
This email is subject to the disclaimer of Smile Communications at