I do not disagree with any of that, or with testing your flows end-to-end to uncover problems. I just meant that most of your examples were not particularly anchored, conceptually.
The subscribe/notify may be rather more of an exception.
Steve Davies steve@connection-telecom.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 22 August 2013 12:46, Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com wrote:
On 08/22/2013 06:25 AM, Steve Davies wrote:
Ordinary outbound and inbound calls
Holding / unholding "Blind" transfers "Attended" transfers mid-call reINVITEs (session timers?) T.38 Subscriptions
The specificity of almost all of these scenarios lies in the user
agents
that are the endpoints of the call, and not the proxy.
So, while they might be useful end-to-end tests of your entire
service
delivery platform, they are broken down according to a taxonomy that differs from the proxy's state machine and functional orientation.
I do take your point.
So since I correctly handle initial requests and the replies, and can handle in-dialog requests and replies, and deal with those hop-by-hop requests, I can just relax and be happy?
As you say, my different end-user scenarios boil down to the same "elements", but in practice my tests did find a problem with the way my Enswitch proxy was handling loose-routed NOTIFYs.
Users are very good at finding odd corner-cases, so it seems helpful to consider in advance flows that exercise unusual paths through the proxy config.
Regards, Steve
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Sent from my mobile, and thus lacking in the refinement one might expect from a fully fledged keyboard.
Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 United States Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com