6 Mar
2008
6 Mar
'08
7:47 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
Adding a timeout_route doesn't imply that the backward compatibility
will be broken.
A timeout_route will deal with a timer, and not with a message
(regardless if it's a locally generated one or a received one) like
failure_route.
2) add new feature to manage/control C timer
(like onreply route change
support, different routes for timeout and failures, etc)..
Is this commonly agreed?
as long some backwards compatibility is retained, i.e., it should not be
mandatory to split current failure route into failure and timeout route,
for example. From my prospective, if timer C fires, the first hook
will be in
timeout_route where the administrator can decide to re-arm the timer
or not.
The default action (i.e. no action taken in timeout_route), of course,
will be to let the timer fire, and this it will generate a local 408
reply that will be handled in the failure_route, just like today.
Like this, backward compatibility is fully retained.
just my 2c
Regards,
Ovidiu Sas