19 Dec
2005
19 Dec
'05
7:55 p.m.
Hi Bogdan,
I meant t_reply() will keep its behaviour as looking
into URI for the
destination - but it will incorporate the NAPTR lookup.
Great - this answers my question.
to response also to on earlier question, regarding the
timing
- I say 3 months are more than enough ;).
Excellent.
Many thanks for your help (and patience ;)
--Joachim
Joachim Fabini wrote:
Hi Bogdan,
indeed, there was a misunderstanding :) .t_relay()
with no
param will be kept with the current functionality.
Or you suggest to be able to specify only a different proto
or port from the RURI?
I did not yet find the primitive which is supposed to
statefully relay and do the following:
1. NAPTR query on the transport to use PLUS
2. _exactly_ what t_relay() does now for the
transport returned by the NAPTR query.
You say that t_relay() is kept with the current functionality.
Does this mean no NAPTR, or will t_relay() be extended to use
NAPTR before SRV/A query? If the latter then everything is OK.
Otherwise we have the alternatives:
t_relay() -> Stateful relaying according to destination
address using the incoming transport (no NAPTR).
t_relay_to() -> Stateful relaying to a specific host (you said
that <host> is mandatory here) using NAPTR to
determine the transport.
To summarize:
My point is that none of these two primitives covers the case
when the message is to be relayed to the next hop based only
on the destination address _and_ using the transport selected
by the destination proxy (determined via NAPTR query).
Except if either a) t_relay() does NAPTR or b) the host
parameter in t_relay_to() is optional.
--Joachim