RE: [reSIProcate] General call for attention: Helper::makeResponse()and tags.

["Derek MacDonald" <derek@xxxxxxxx>]

The tag change didn't affect DUM, but the rest of resiprocate wasn't brought
in line with this change so all the error responses automatically generated
by the SipStack suddenly didn't have to tags, which is incorrect.  There is
nothing wrong with the Helper changes if to tags are added to these
responses.

--Derek

PS -- backing out the to tag change was the quickest way to get back to a
known state.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:resiprocate-
> devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Hawrylyshen
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 7:41 PM
> To: 'resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' resiprocate-devel
> Subject: [reSIProcate] General call for attention:
> Helper::makeResponse()and tags.
> 
> I've noticed that the DUM folks (no pun, really) are discussing a
> change to Helper::makeResponse() that removed the automatic tag
> fabrication.  I believe it has even been added back in.  Right now I
> cannot recall the justification for removing the tag,  but someone
> pointed it out to me quite clearly at the time -- something along the
> lines of the transaction not being able to decide if there really
> needed to be a tag; something that the TU should do.
> 
> Can anyone who recalls this discussion with me refresh my memory and
> chime in on the tag issue so we don't wander around the mulberry bush
> for 4 more years? ;-)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alan Hawrylyshen
> reSIProcate Project Administrator
> http://sipfoundry.org/reSIProcate/
> a l a n a t j a s o m i d o t c o m
> 
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel