reSIProcate

Mailing Lists

Source Code

Google Search:



< Previous by Date Date Index Next by Date >
  Thread Index  

Re: [reSIProcate] To DUM or not to DUM that is the question (Robert Whitaker)

As for as I am concerned Dum can be used for this.


With Regards,

Saurabh Nirkhey
Systems Software Engineer
saurabh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------
http://www.phonologies.com

Phonologies (India) Private Limited
Technology Development Lab
West Wing, Marri Deep,
M.C.H. No. 12-5-4, Lallaguda,
Secunderabad 500 017. INDIA.

Ph:+91-04-2701 8993   Fax:+91-04-2701 8992
--------------------------------
****The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by
anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken
in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful****

Today's Topics:

   1. Is compact form of header field name supported? (Wenwei Xu)
   2. Re: Is compact form of header field name supported? (Scott Godin)
   3. Unsafe use of Content-Length in ConnectionBase (Byron Campen)
   4. To DUM or not to DUM that is the question (Robert Whitaker)
   5. Re: To DUM or not to DUM that is the question (Jason Fischl)
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi!

We'd like to use compact form of header field name to reduce the size of
message. We notice that the SIP stack can recognize the incoming messages
with header field name in compact form. But is it possible that those field
header names in outgoing messages are also in compact form? How do we this
with reciprocate SIP stack?

Thanks,
Wenwei Xu

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
It is not currently possible to ask the stack to emit compact headers.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Wenwei Xu
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:16 PM
> To: 'resiprocate-devel'
> Subject: [reSIProcate] Is compact form of header field name supported?
> 
> Hi!
> 
> We'd like to use compact form of header field name to reduce the size
> of message. We notice that the SIP stack can recognize the incoming
> messages with header field name in compact form. But is it possible
> that those field header names in outgoing messages are also in compact
> form? How do we this with reciprocate SIP stack?
> 
> Thanks,
> Wenwei Xu
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- ConnectionBase uses header(h_ContentLength) without a try block in two places. If Content-Length is malformed, we could end up with strange behavior (I haven't dug very deep into precisely how strange). Recommend we wrap these in try, and if something goes wrong, scrap the connection. 

Best regards,
Byron Campen

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
I am working on a gateway project that requires
translating SIP requests to a proprietary signaling
protocol and I am wondering if DUM is the appropriate
interface to use (or whether I should write code
directly on top of the resip stack). Any advice on how
to architect this project using reSIProcate would be
greatly appreciated.

In case more information is needed, here is a example
of the needed functionality:

------------------------------
a) Assume Alice uses a SIP phone 

b) Assume Bob uses a proprietary phone

c) Assume a gateway translates SIP requests to the
proprietary protocol

d) Assume Alice calls Bob using
"sip:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 

e) The "chattanooga.com" server receives "INVITE
sip:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" from Alice 

f) The "chattanooga.com" server sends "100 Trying"
back to Alice 

g) The "chattanooga.com" server makes Bob's phone ring
via proprietary IPC method

h) The "chattanooga.com" server sends "180 Ringing"
back to Alice

i) Bob picks up his phone and an IPC method informs
the "chattanooga.com" server

j) The "chattanooga.com" server sends "200 OK" back to
Alice

------------------------------

The "chattanooga.com" server will be expected to
service many simultaneous invite requests (for example
Mary is calling Peter simultaneously). When Bob's
phone starts ringing, the "chattanooga.com" server
needs to invoke "180 Ringing" on Alice's session (not
Mary's). Therefore the "chattanooga.com" server will
need to have a map of objects...

QUESTION: Is this a good match for DUM or should I
write this directly on top of the stack?

Thanks,

Bob


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 8/29/06, Robert Whitaker <capnwhit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


QUESTION: Is this a good match for DUM or should I
write this directly on top of the stack?


Sounds ideal for dum to me.

--- End Message ---