<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [sr-dev] improving the dialog module</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> > > UA1 --> P1 --> P2 --> P1 -->UA2<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Are you suggesting that one single dialog should be kept in the<BR>
> > > proxy server P1?<BR>
> ><BR>
> > If the request message that is routed in this path is just the same with<BR>
> > respect to the dialog ID (excluding the To-tag which does not exist at<BR>
> > this point as Klaus pointed out), then I do suggest it should be the<BR>
> > same dialog.<BR>
><BR>
> i agree with ovidiu here, i.e., there should be two dialogs in P1.<BR>
> also, i don't understand why the second dialog should remain dangling<BR>
> until cleanup, because BYE will pass P1 twice and would terminate both<BR>
> dialogs.<BR>
<BR>
The dangling dialog occurs due to insufficient dialog matching capabilities<BR>
in the current dialog module. As Ovidiu explained in his last mail, a more<BR>
strict matching logic could make sure that the right dialog is chosen,<BR>
thereby not depending on long timeouts getting triggered.<BR>
<BR>
However, I still do not see what the benefit of having separate dialogs in<BR>
the particular case described is, and also believe that there is at least<BR>
another major drawback. Let me outline that in the other thread...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--Timo</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>