21 Mar
2005
21 Mar
'05
4:51 p.m.
Hi Andreas,
please see my comments inline
Best regards,
Marian
Andreas Granig wrote:
Hi again!
Elena-Ramona Modroiu wrote:
The display name must not be involved in transaction matching. If I
understand correctly the RFC 3261, only the URI part of FROM must be used.
I just commited the part that should fix the
<> issue. Please let me
know if it works now.
Ok, thanks, the <> issue is fixed. But... :o)
Two other points:
- The original display name isn't encoded, and thus can't be restored.
Could this be an issue for UACs matching the whole From-Header? - For a subsequent request with interchanged From/To
(like a BYE from
the the called party) you have to *restore* the To-URI of the request
and *replace* the To-URI of the response. The latter isn't supported by
the module. So we'd need a uac_replace_to which can be called from a
reply route. It's getting complicated here ;o)
yes, we are aware of this bug. I already discussed with Romona about
this problem and will be fixed soon.
Andy
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Voice System
http://www.voice-system.ro