[OpenSER-Users] "noisy_ctimer" parameter in TM module

[Ovidiu Sas]

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Juha Heinanen <jh at tutpro.com> wrote:
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
>
>   > 2) add new feature to manage/control C timer (like onreply route change
>   > support, different routes for timeout and failures, etc)..
>   >
>   > Is this commonly agreed?
>
>  as long some backwards compatibility is retained, i.e., it should not be
>  mandatory to split current failure route into failure and timeout route,
>  for example.

Adding a timeout_route doesn't imply that the backward compatibility
will be broken.
A timeout_route will deal with a timer, and not with a message
(regardless if it's a locally generated one or a received one) like
failure_route.
>From my prospective, if timer C fires, the first hook will be in
timeout_route where the administrator can decide to re-arm the timer
or not.
The default action (i.e. no action taken in timeout_route), of course,
will be to let the timer fire, and this it will generate a local 408
reply that will be handled in the failure_route, just like today.
Like this, backward compatibility is fully retained.

just my 2c

Regards,
Ovidiu Sas