[Users] ENUM behaviour issue

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

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 at openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>