Hi,
Any particular reason why the proxy return value is not documented for the handle_request() callback of the diameter application?
Here are the comments documenting the request_cb() in diameter_traffic.erl , Erlang/OTP 27.3.3:
%% Relay a request to another peer. This is equivalent to doing an
%% explicit call/4 with the message in question except that (1) a loop
%% will be detected by examining Route-Record AVP’s, (2) a
%% Route-Record AVP will be added to the outgoing request and (3) the
%% End-to-End Identifier will default to that in the
%% #diameter_header{} without the need for an end_to_end_identifier
%% option.
%%
%% relay and proxy are similar in that they require the same handling
%% with respect to Route-Record and End-to-End identifier. The
%% difference is that a proxy advertises specific applications, while
%% a relay advertises the relay application. If a callback doesn’t
%% want to distinguish between the cases in the callback return value
%% then ‘resend’ is a neutral alternative.
%%
It is actually working exactly how it is described in the comment above.
Official documentation for the handle_request() cb:
Thanks,
Cristian