Hello, I am under the impression that the name dialog_ng creates confusion out there and some people are using it instead of the classic dialog module. Although it was started with goals of reworking dialog module with a different concept (which was discussed mainly by some guys that afterwards changed their job to non-voip area), dialog_ng ended up to be tailored for IMS needs. Probably we should do that refactoring of the dialog module, but meanwhile dialog_ng doesn't refect that and some people are confused by the current naming of the two modules. Practically is more about convenience at this moment and if IMS developers and users think it is not going to be a big overhead for their deployments to be upgraded, I can take care to rename it. So, while general opinion matters, I think we should see first what IMS devs prefer. I am personally not affected that much, so I am fine to keep it like it is now -- in that case, proper notes should be added to documentation, stating that dialog_ng must be used only for IMS (or when the config writer knows very well what she/he is doing). Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com http://miconda.eu _______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev