Hi Alex, On 22 August 2013 12:46, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com> wrote:
> > On 08/22/2013 06:25 AM, Steve Davies wrote: > > Ordinary outbound and inbound calls >> Holding / unholding >> "Blind" transfers >> "Attended" transfers >> mid-call reINVITEs (session timers?) >> T.38 >> Subscriptions >> > > The specificity of almost all of these scenarios lies in the user agents > that are the endpoints of the call, and not the proxy. > > So, while they might be useful end-to-end tests of your entire service > delivery platform, they are broken down according to a taxonomy that > differs from the proxy's state machine and functional orientation. > > I do take your point. So since I correctly handle initial requests and the replies, and can handle in-dialog requests and replies, and deal with those hop-by-hop requests, I can just relax and be happy? As you say, my different end-user scenarios boil down to the same "elements", but in practice my tests did find a problem with the way my Enswitch proxy was handling loose-routed NOTIFYs. Users are very good at finding odd corner-cases, so it seems helpful to consider in advance flows that exercise unusual paths through the proxy config. Regards, Steve
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
