[reSIProcate] Matching INFO requests and responses

Fri Dec 10 11:46:00 CST 2010

Thanks,

Scott, do you think it could be commited to the mainline?

Regards,
Francis

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Aron Rosenberg <arosenberg at logitech.com>wrote:

> I tested the branch code within our app and its working great for all
> the scenarios. It looks good to go from my end.
>
> -Aron
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Francis Joanis
> <francis.joanis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > (thanks to you both for the suggestions and examples :))
> > I went ahead and did a first working
> > implementation:
> https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/resiprocate/branches/b-nit-contents-20101209/
> > I cached it as a smart pointer (SharedPtr<SipMessage>) since that is what
> we
> > are passing around anyway in the code. If we cached a copy instead,
> wouldn't
> > we loose things like the branch parameter and other things set in
> > DUM::send()?
> > If no NIT request was sent, then users can validate the SharedPtr using
> the
> > implicit conversion to bool (i.e. assert(mySharedPtr)).
> > I've also modified BasicCall.cxx to test it (using both INFO and
> MESSAGE). I
> > added assertions to ensure that it works and I also ran it under Valgrind
> on
> > Linux. I will test it on Windows shortly.
> > Feel free to comment,
> > Francis
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Scott Godin <sgodin at sipspectrum.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The other InviteSession API's return objects by reference (ie.
> >> SipMessage&) - you just need to handle the case when a caller accesses
> the
> >> new API and you don't have a previous NIT request to return - returning
> a
> >> reference to a static empty SipMessage makes sense for this case
> >> (see InviteSession::getLocalOfferAnswer for an example.
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Aron Rosenberg <
> arosenberg at logitech.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The only "main" reason to expand the callback API was to try and match
> >>> ClientPagerMessageHandler...but I can rework the API to still keep the
> >>> last request in the NIT queue but expose a new method on InviteSession
> >>> called getLastNITRequest() . Should that return a
> >>> auto_ptr<SipMessage>, const SipMessage* or something else?
> >>>
> >>> -Aron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Scott Godin <sgodin at sipspectrum.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > That works for me too - in fact if you are going with this approach,
> >>> > then
> >>> > you may as well store the entire last IT request and make it
> available
> >>> > instead of just the contents.  A branch sounds like a good idea.  : )
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Scott
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Francis Joanis
> >>> > <francis.joanis at gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >> What about the following: rather than changing the DUM callbacks we
> >>> >> could
> >>> >> expose a reader to get the last Contents that was sent as a NIT? A
> bit
> >>> >> like
> >>> >> InviteSession::getRemoteSdp().
> >>> >> That way, if someone wants to access it, it can simply be done in
> the
> >>> >> on*
> >>> >> callbacks. It would be cleaner in the sense that it won't change the
> >>> >> interfaces at all.
> >>> >> I will take care of ensuring that the memory is properly managed
> >>> >> (helped
> >>> >> by valgrind). I was thinking of cloning the contents of the message
> >>> >> then
> >>> >> assigning it to an auto_ptr as a member of InviteSession.
> >>> >> I also want to code a test suite to ensure that it works for INFO,
> >>> >> MESSAGE. We also need to ensure that it doesn't screw up the REFERs
> >>> >> since
> >>> >> currently nitComplete() is also called from Dialog.cxx.
> >>> >> I was thinking of creating a branch to do this:
> >>> >> b-nit-contents-20101209.
> >>> >> Scott, let me know if you think that would be a bad idea ;)
> >>> >> I'll let you know of my progress.
> >>> >> Francis
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Aron Rosenberg
> >>> >> <arosenberg at logitech.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I coded up a working patch based on Scott's feedback. The only
> >>> >>> difference is that neither set of callbacks are pure-virtual now. I
> >>> >>> figure this was better moving forward so that new code didn't need
> to
> >>> >>> reference the old handler. It also seems that dealing with the
> >>> >>> responses to INFO and MESSAGE aren't needed by most normal UA's. I
> >>> >>> tested this patch with MESSAGE requests on the wire and it works.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> My only worry with this patch is that the memory handling semantics
> >>> >>> are correct. mNITQueue holds SharedPtr<SipMessage> and it seems ok
> >>> >>> for
> >>> >>> that to stay valid after dum.send() has been called. On the
> callback
> >>> >>> we pass a const Contents* rather than an auto_ptr since we can't
> get
> >>> >>> an auto_ptr from SipMessage for Contents without a clone call. I
> >>> >>> figure the developer who needs this longer than the life of the
> >>> >>> callback can clone themselves.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Francis: Can you test the INFO side to make sure you are getting
> the
> >>> >>> right data back.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> -Aron
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Scott Godin <
> sgodin at sipspectrum.com>
> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> > I think we could add the new callback and leave the old one
> place.
> >>> >>> >  The
> >>> >>> > new
> >>> >>> > handler would not be virtual, and the default handler for the new
> >>> >>> > callback
> >>> >>> > would just throw away the contents and call the old callback.
>  This
> >>> >>> > will
> >>> >>> > allow current applications to use the new dum version without any
> >>> >>> > code
> >>> >>> > changes.  For applications that want to see the Contents, they
> >>> >>> > would
> >>> >>> > need to
> >>> >>> > implement both callbacks, but the old callback can be left blank
> as
> >>> >>> > it
> >>> >>> > will
> >>> >>> > never get called.
> >>> >>> > Scott
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Aron Rosenberg
> >>> >>> > <arosenberg at logitech.com>
> >>> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> The major use-case we need to fix is this:
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> InviteSession based MESSAGE requests where the far end returns
> 415
> >>> >>> >> (mime-type invalid) for some types (text/plain works, but
> >>> >>> >> text/html
> >>> >>> >> doesn't, application/im-iscomposing+xml doesn't). Without the
> >>> >>> >> Contents* of the request that failed, we can't tell which type
> >>> >>> >> failed
> >>> >>> >> to determine if we need to notify the user sending the message.
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> Scott: You have an opinion on if changing the callback type is
> an
> >>> >>> >> ok
> >>> >>> >> way to proceed?
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> Francis: I have attached a prototype patch for this, it has only
> >>> >>> >> been
> >>> >>> >> compile tested if you want to try it and flesh it out some more.
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> -Aron
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Francis Joanis
> >>> >>> >> <francis.joanis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> >> > Hi,
> >>> >>> >> > I like what you are proposing since any user-specific
> >>> >>> >> > information
> >>> >>> >> > would
> >>> >>> >> > go
> >>> >>> >> > in the user-derived Contents object: it acts a bit like an
> >>> >>> >> > AppDialog/Set
> >>> >>> >> > in
> >>> >>> >> > that sense.
> >>> >>> >> > We could even implement this by only caching the Contents of
> the
> >>> >>> >> > last
> >>> >>> >> > sent
> >>> >>> >> > NIT request, since they're all sent serially (so no need to do
> >>> >>> >> > the
> >>> >>> >> > extra
> >>> >>> >> > management on mNITQueue). This would mainly require adding a
> new
> >>> >>> >> > member
> >>> >>> >> > variable (probably an auto_ptr<Contents>) to InviteSession and
> >>> >>> >> > changing
> >>> >>> >> > the
> >>> >>> >> > various on* callbacks in InviteSessionHandler.
> >>> >>> >> > In the case of the REFER (which is also using mNITQueue), it
> >>> >>> >> > would
> >>> >>> >> > most
> >>> >>> >> > likely have a NULL Contents, so it could get ignored on the
> >>> >>> >> > callbacks
> >>> >>> >> > (i.e.
> >>> >>> >> > no need to modify the onRefer* callbacks).
> >>> >>> >> > I started playing around with the code but I'd like to know if
> >>> >>> >> > such
> >>> >>> >> > a
> >>> >>> >> > change
> >>> >>> >> > would be a good one or not from the perspective of the more
> >>> >>> >> > experienced
> >>> >>> >> > developers. Changing callback APIs seems like a somewhat major
> >>> >>> >> > change
> >>> >>> >> > (i.e.
> >>> >>> >> > it will break current apps) and I wouldn't want to do it
> unless
> >>> >>> >> > there is
> >>> >>> >> > really a good use case.
> >>> >>> >> > Regards,
> >>> >>> >> > Francis
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Aron Rosenberg
> >>> >>> >> > <arosenberg at logitech.com>
> >>> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> For a slightly different issue (matching 415's to outbound
> >>> >>> >> >> MESSAGE
> >>> >>> >> >> requests) I was looking at modifying InviteSession to remove
> >>> >>> >> >> the
> >>> >>> >> >> SipMessage* from the mNITQueue upon end of transaction rather
> >>> >>> >> >> than
> >>> >>> >> >> beginning of transaction. We could then pass up the Contents*
> >>> >>> >> >> like
> >>> >>> >> >> is
> >>> >>> >> >> done with ClientPagerMessage.
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> onMessageSuccess(resip::InviteSessionHandle ish, const
> >>> >>> >> >> resip::SipMessage&status) would become
> >>> >>> >> >> onMessageSuccess(resip::InviteSessionHandle ish, const
> >>> >>> >> >> resip::SipMessage&status, std::auto_ptr<Contents> contents)
> >>> >>> >> >> onMessageFailure(resip::InviteSessionHandle ish, const
> >>> >>> >> >> resip::SipMessage &status) would become
> >>> >>> >> >> onMessageFailure(resip::InviteSessionHandle ish, const
> >>> >>> >> >> resip::SipMessage &status, std::auto_ptr<Contents> contents)
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> This would also work in the INFO cases with the same changes
> to
> >>> >>> >> >> add
> >>> >>> >> >> std::auto_ptr<Contents> contents to the callbacks.
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> I also attempted to try the other way, dig into the
> >>> >>> >> >> TransactionController / TU and create a "SipMessage*
> >>> >>> >> >> findLastRequestForResponse(SipMessage*)" that used the tid,
> but
> >>> >>> >> >> this
> >>> >>> >> >> would require adding a number of public functions to
> SipStack,
> >>> >>> >> >> TransactionMap and some other classes.
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> -Aron
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> Aron Rosenberg
> >>> >>> >> >> Logitech Inc. (SightSpeed Group)
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Francis Joanis
> >>> >>> >> >> <francis.joanis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> >> >> > So I guess it leaves me with the original workaround of
> >>> >>> >> >> > leveraging
> >>> >>> >> >> > the
> >>> >>> >> >> > fact
> >>> >>> >> >> > that all NITs are sequential. Also I think I could use an
> >>> >>> >> >> > outgoing
> >>> >>> >> >> > DumFeature to inspect outgoing messages, but that would be
> >>> >>> >> >> > called
> >>> >>> >> >> > for
> >>> >>> >> >> > all
> >>> >>> >> >> > outgoing messages, which will impact performance.
> >>> >>> >> >> > Thanks,
> >>> >>> >> >> > Francis
> >>> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Scott Godin
> >>> >>> >> >> > <sgodin at sipspectrum.com>
> >>> >>> >> >> > wrote:
> >>> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> >> The branch parameter is "reset" in DialogUsageManager send
> >>> >>> >> >> >> (ln
> >>> >>> >> >> >> 824)
> >>> >>> >> >> >> -
> >>> >>> >> >> >> so
> >>> >>> >> >> >> it won't help to store the branch parameter in the message
> >>> >>> >> >> >> created
> >>> >>> >> >> >> (same
> >>> >>> >> >> >> applies for onReadyToSend).
> >>> >>> >> >> >> Scott
> >>> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Francis Joanis
> >>> >>> >> >> >> <francis.joanis at gmail.com>
> >>> >>> >> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Hi Scott,
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Thanks for your reply.
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> What about if we changed
> InviteSession::info/refer/message
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> to
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> return a
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> _copy_ of the constructed SipMessage rather than
> returning
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> void?
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> I ran a quick test and it looks like the transaction id
> is
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> set
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> when
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> the
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> message is constructed. That way, I can immediately cache
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> the
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> SIP
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> transaction id to pair it with my "key". This removes the
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> need
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> for
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> my
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> extra
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> "key list" and does not require message inspection in
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> onReadyToSend.
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> (I've also attached a patch to do this.)
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Thanks,
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Francis
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Scott Godin
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> <sgodin at sipspectrum.com>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> ...inline...
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Francis Joanis
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> <francis.joanis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> Hi guys,
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> I have a question about sending multiple NIT messages
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> logically
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> "at
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> the
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> same time" (with DUM). I do know that the current code
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> doesn't
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> allow
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> for
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> real parallel NIT requests (i.e. the NIT queue in
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> InviteSession)
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> -
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> but
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> that's not my issue.
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> The issue I have is regarding how to match incoming
> INFO
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> responses
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> to
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> their request. Imagine I need to send INFO messages
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> regarding
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> application-specific transactions (like DB transactions
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> or
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> whatever
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> application specific thing like a button click). I'll
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> call
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> those
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> non-SIP
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> transaction ids "keys".
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> If I can't have the keys passed into the INFO body and
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> then
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> have
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> them
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> resupplied back into the INFO response, there is no
> easy
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> way
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> of
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> matching
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> which response is for which request (especially if my
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> application
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> would
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> allow multiple requests to be sent (queued in NIT
> queue)
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> at
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> the
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> same
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> time).
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> The "workaround" would be to leverage the fact that
> NITs
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> in
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> an
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> INVITE
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> dialog are all serialized: I could keep a separate list
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> of
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> "keys".
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> If I were
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> to add my key to the list right before sending the INFO
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> message,
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> I
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> would
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> then know that the next INFO response will relate to
> that
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> key
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> (oldest
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> element of the key list). But this can get messy since
> I
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> would
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> need
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> to make
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> sure that the "key list" is properly managed.
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> [Scott]  This solution works without having to modify
> DUM,
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> and
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> its
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> likely very similar to how it would be implemented in
> DUM
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> if
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> we
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> added
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> some
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> kind of key/id to the info() call and response callback.
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>  Alternatively, you
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> could track the transaction id's as the INFO messages
> flow
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> out
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> of
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> the
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> invite
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> session by watching the onReadyToSend callback, but I
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> don't
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> think
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> that
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> offers any advantage over assuming the requests are
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> serialized.
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> If I look at the similar scenario but with INVITE
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> messages,
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> one
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> can
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> easily leverage the AppDialogSet/... to do this: set
> the
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> "key" on
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> the
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> AppDialogSet and then it will be easily accessible once
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> INVITE
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> responses
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> arrive (extracted from the INVITE session).
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> I was thinking of extracting the id of the SIP
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> transaction
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> created
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> for
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> the INFO to use it for a lookup between the SIP
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> transaction
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> id
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> and
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> my "key".
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> That way, when handling onInfo* callbacks I would be
> able
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> to
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> access
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> the SIP
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> transaction id from the response message and map it
> with
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> my
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> "key".
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> However, this might not be feasible if the SIP
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> transaction id
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> is
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> unknown to the DUM at this time (prior to sending it).
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> What do you make out of this?
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> I suspect this will get worst if reSIProcate ever
> allows
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> multiple
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> NITs
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> in parallel at the same time (in an INVITE dialog),
> since
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> then
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> there
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> would
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> really be no easy way of matching them up to
> application
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> specific
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> data (or
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> am I asking for an AppTransaction class ;)?)
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> [Scott] Not sure we would ever allow this - I remember
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> this
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> being
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> discouraged by the IETF.
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> Thanks a lot,
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> Francis
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>>
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>>
> >>> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> >> >> > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >>> >>> >> >> > resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> >>> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >> >
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >>> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >> >
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> >> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >>> >>> >> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> >>> >>> >> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >>> >>> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> >>> >>> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> >>> >> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> >>> >> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20101210/4c5fc625/attachment.htm>