[Serdev] SER's core design features(process model/parser/lumps/script) - was: So who/what is SER for, anyway?

[Dragos Vingarzan]

Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> Jesus, no! The point of having optional record routing on a per-request
> basis is that you can only have record routing if you need this.
>
> Consider an INVITE request spiraling through your proxy for whatever
> reason. Do I need to see the BYE six times? No. But I want see it once.
>   
if it spirals through your proxy, there surely is some reason for it. I
think that there should be a dialog level, where you could just enable
this always-on record-route. If you have reasons for the spirals, then
just don't use this dialog level and build your own non-standard mechanism.
> So your NAT traversal strategy is the same as mine? I do have a couple
> of special things which I can only do because the script allows me to do
> whatever I want.
>   
So the few lucky one that have used SER long enough know how to do it...
No, this should be core functionality if SER would claim NAT traversal.
> That's just my sixteen øre as someone who gets all the strange
> interoperability problems on his desk and needs fix them. Ultimately,
> the fate of SER is in the hands of the core developers.
>   
indeed... so are you saying that we need a fork to be heard if we want
more than you do? Isn't there a way to have both?
> Greger is working on it. What I've seen of it is very promising,
> so bear with him.
>   
If you do just proxy and registrar.... what if not?


-Dragos