[OpenSIPS-Users] Proposal for change in add_diversion function

[Rudy]

Saul,

 The new behavior would indeed be desirable in cases such as enum. Another
solution might be to add an optional parameter to add_diversion for using
the newly rewritten ruri. This may work more fluidly with older code that
relies on the current behavior.

Regards,
--Rudy
Dynamic Packet
Toll-Free: 888.929.VOIP ( 8647 )


On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
<saul at ag-projects.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to make a change to the add_diversion function of the diversions
> module and I'd like some feedback, in case my proposed change could cause
> trouble to anyone.
>
> Right now the aforementioned function inserts the original request URI of
> the message as the indication of who made the diversion. It does so as
> follows:
>
> uri = &msg->first_line.u.request.uri;
>
> This means that if the request URI was modified since the message was
> received, the new URI won't be set in the diversion header, the old one
> will. In cases where ENUM is involved, for example, one could want to see
> the real URI after the ENUM resolution.
>
> Would anyone oppose to setting the *current* RURI instead? That is, take
> the URI from msg->parsed_uri.
>
> As an alternative, we could keep the current behavior and add a module
> parameter (diverter_avp) where one could set the URI he wanted to see in
> the diversion header, and use the current approach if the AVP is not set.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> --
> Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
> AG Projects
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120529/015b683e/attachment.htm>