[SR-Users] options_reply()

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

On 8/22/13 10:07 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The options_reply() function does not answer OPTIONS pings that 
> contain a username in the request URI.  To its credit, the 
> documentation does say that, too:
>
> http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/4.0.x/modules/siputils.html#idp131056
>
> The question is: why not?  I do not see anything in RFC 3261 Section 
> 11.1 ("Construction of an OPTIONS Request") that seems to rule out an 
> OPTIONS request with a user part:
>
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3261#section-11.1
>
> Quite a few UAs out there, including, notably, Metaswitch, do send 
> user parts in the OPTIONS RURI.  To deal with them, I am forced to simply
>
>    sl_send_reply("200", "OK");
>
> instead of using options_reply().
>
> What is the underlying theory?
I think the reason was that requests with username have to be routed to 
that username and answered by its device. OPTIONS can be used to 
discover capabilities and if I want to discover your device capabilities 
I will send it to alex at balashov.com . The server is identified only by 
ip:port.

If you want to use the function on server even when there is a username, 
you can do $rU=$null; before it. Not sure if really makes sense to 
change the code, but then the condition can be also in config file like 
if($rU==$null) {options_reply();}

Because OPTIONS for keepalive doesn't really look for capabilities of 
the other endpoint, I am simply replying with sl_send_reply(), it's more 
lightweight.

Cheers,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda