Re: [Serusers] t_check_status in failure_route

Richard Z wrote:

I have some private code to treat 487 as the lowest number. There were some discussions about this in ser list before. Since there is no standard, ser implementation just picked the the lowest code.

RFC 3261 tells to use the lowest code, except 6xx which always wins immediately.

regards klaus

I am not sure which way is better, pick 487 as lowest, or use t_check_status. Any suggestion?

If someone wanst, I can provide the patch to the list.

Richard

On 9/9/05, *Andreas Granig* <andreas.granig@inode.info mailto:andreas.granig@inode.info> wrote:

Andreas Granig wrote:
 > There was a discussion about introducing a method which checks if the
 > call is cancelled to detect 487 (don't know anymore if on the
 > openser-lists or here), but what about other codes?

Or to rephrase it: does it really make sense to choose the lowest code
for serial forking? I understand it does when forking in parallel, and
that it's the same implementation for both in SER, but wouldn't it make
live easier when differing between both scenarios and just overwrite the
last code when doing serial forking?

Andy

_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers@lists.iptel.org <mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org>
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

---

---

Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers