[Serusers] Re: [Serdev] Auth* changes
Martin Koenig
martin.koenig at toplink-plannet.de
Thu Apr 21 18:06:21 CEST 2005
Hello,
Juha Heinanen wrote:
>Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
>
> > caller|callee_rpid notation makes no sense since you don't have any rpid
> > for callee, right?
>
>sure callee uri can also have rpid associated with it.
>
> > Plus that you restrict the AVP only to AVP name - I
> > plan to have in dev branch the option to set an AVP id for rpid also.
>
>that is the other issue i forgot to mention. i think it should be
>possible already in rel_0_9_0 to give rpid avp an id instead of name.
>
>since this rpid change (which was not a bug fix) was backported to
>rel_0_9_0, it should be done properly, i.e., it should use avp spec like
>tm avp params do. i just counted that in my script rpid avp may get
>used five times during processing of one invite and i'm worried about
>the performance impact of string rpid avp name.
>
>so since the backport was against of the rules, i suggest that the
>change is reversed or done properly that also allows an integer as rpid
>avp name.
>
>
I, from a user's point of view, am against the reversal of this
backport. I like the functionality in 0_9_0 alot and think it is very
useful. However, Juha's point regarding performance remains valid.
With best regards,
Martin Koenig
More information about the sr-users
mailing list