[asterisk-scf-dev] New SIP configuration items

[Kevin P. Fleming]

On 12/15/2011 10:38 AM, Mark Michelson wrote:
> I opened issue ASTSCF-397
> (https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTSCF-397)based on an audit I
> did of the existing SIP configuration items. There are several items
> that are defined in our slice but that are either not read by our Python
> configurator script or are not actually handled if pushed to the SIP
> component by the configurator. I plan to alter the configurator and the
> SIP component so that these items can actually be configured. My problem
> is that I am unsure of how these items should be grouped.
>
> First, let's go over the items that are unused:
>
> * SipUserAgentItem - Presumably intended to be used to configure what
> text appears in the User-Agent header in SIP messages sent by Asterisk SCF.
> * SipRTPMediaServiceItem - The name of the media service to locate when
> requesting a proxy to an RTP media service.
> * SipUDPTLMediaServiceItem - The same as SipRTPMediaServiceItem except
> used for requesting a proxy to a UDPTL media service.
> * SipRoutingItem - The name of the routing service to locate when
> requesting a proxy to a routing service.
>
> My problem is that I don't know if these are things that people would
> want to set in SipEndpointGroups or in the SipGeneralGroup.
>
> Here are my initial feelings on the matter:
>
> The SipUserAgentItem should go in the SipGeneralGroup since it doesn't
> really seem like something that would change for individual endpoints.
>
> The SipRTPMediaServiceItem and SipUDPTLMediaServiceItem should appear in
> SipEndpointGroups since these do seem like the type of things that
> people could want to configure per endpoint.
>
> The SipRoutingItem could go either way. I'm leaning towards putting it
> in the SipGeneralGroup because of potential complications from
> attempting to configure it per endpoint.

My opinion is that all of them could legitimately have a need to be 
configured on a per-endpoint basis, but providing defaults for them at a 
'general' level would be beneficial as well (although to be honest I 
haven't even looked to see if we are supporting that sort of 
configuration model right now... deciding when to use or not use the 
default value could be quite tricky).

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming at digium.com | SIP: kpfleming at digium.com | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org