On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 12:38 +0100, Olle E Johansson wrote: > trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: > > > I think what you are saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, is > > that most of what you are doing in terms of these features is already > > done, and that its to work with the current chan_sip, basically just > > adding features to it. > > > > Is that correct? > > > Yes, the work that this mail thread is about, is done on current chan_sip. > > Moving to another SIP library is something to be considered for a future > version of chan_sip, in the chan_sip3 project.
Now to ask what appears to me to be an obvious question. Again not to demean any work that you have done, nor the situation that it put you in, but if chan_sip3 would be a new sip stack and in theory obsolete your work by using a sip stack that presumably has all the features you described plus potentially additional ones (CNG, VAD, etc) why should resources not be put towards that project instead? I understand that this can sound inflamatory and that is not my intent, email often sounds different than it is intended, either too harsh or too jovial, my intent is just to gather information. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378 http://www.sacaug.org/ Sacramento Asterisk Users Group
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
