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 Users@openser.org http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users