[Serusers] t_check_status in failure_route

[Klaus Darilion]

Richard Z wrote:
> I have some private code to treat 487 as the lowest number. There were 
> some discussions about this in ser list before. Since there is no 
> standard, ser implementation just picked the the lowest code.


RFC 3261 tells to use the lowest code, except 6xx which always wins 
immediately.

regards
klaus


> I am not sure which way is better, pick 487 as lowest, or use 
> t_check_status. Any suggestion?
> 
> If someone wanst, I can provide the patch to the list.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> On 9/9/05, *Andreas Granig* <andreas.granig at inode.info 
> <mailto:andreas.granig at inode.info>> wrote:
> 
>     Andreas Granig wrote:
>      > There was a discussion about introducing a method which checks if the
>      > call is cancelled to detect 487 (don't know anymore if on the
>      > openser-lists or here), but what about other codes?
> 
>     Or to rephrase it: does it really make sense to choose the lowest code
>     for serial forking? I understand it does when forking in parallel, and
>     that it's the same implementation for both in SER, but wouldn't it make
>     live easier when differing between both scenarios and just overwrite the
>     last code when doing serial forking?
> 
>     Andy
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Serusers mailing list
>     serusers at lists.iptel.org <mailto:serusers at lists.iptel.org>
>     http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers