Re: [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum.com; HKaplan@acmepacket.com; g.russell@cablelabs.com
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 31 January 2012 14:17 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: martini@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C9B21F851D for <martini@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1MtH1SU65DwA for <martini@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE4621F851C for <martini@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.98]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id UDbV1i00227AodY5BEHkSM; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:17:44 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([24.62.229.5]) by omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id UEHk1i00K07duvL3fEHkf1; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:17:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4F27F806.2020805@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:17:42 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: martini@ietf.org
References: <76AC5FEF83F1E64491446437EA81A61F81DF5C7E84@srvxchg>
In-Reply-To: <76AC5FEF83F1E64491446437EA81A61F81DF5C7E84@srvxchg>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum.com; HKaplan@acmepacket.com; g.russell@cablelabs.com
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini>
List-Post: <mailto:martini@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:17:46 -0000
On 1/31/12 2:07 AM, David Hancock wrote: > Another GIN question... > Section 10.3 of RFC 3261 says that the 200OK response to a REGISTER > request MUST return all current bindings in the Contact header field. > Here's the text... > > 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response.The response MUST > > contain Contact header field values enumerating all current > > bindings.Each Contact value MUST feature an "expires" > > parameter indicating its expiration interval chosen by the > > registrar.The response SHOULD include a Date header field. > > What does this mean for GIN registration? Does it mean that the > registrar should return the full list of contact addresses that were > bound to the implicitly registered AORs? Or, should it return only the > contact address that was specified in the REGISTER Contact header field? > I think the later behavior is correct. I agree, for at least two reasons: - the list of implicitly registered AORs can be arbitrarily large, and so infeasible to return - based on our prior discussion, its necessary to have the actual registered contacts in order to deregister them. This is one way to get them. > For example, say a SIP-PBX registers to 2 different contact addresses. > First, the SIP-PBX identified in the To: header field of [1] registers > to the Contact address identified in [1]. Response [2] contains the > single registered contact address, even though the multiple implicitly > registered AORs were bound to multiple contacts. Then, the same PBX > registers to a 2nd contact address in [3]. Response [4] now shows two > contact addresses; one for each of the currently registered bindings for > the SIP-PBX. > > SIP-PBXSP-SSE > > ----------------- > > PBX registers 1st time... > > [1] --REGISTER--> > > To: sip:pbx1@sp.com > > Contact: <sip:10.10.10.1;bnc> > > [2] <--200OK -- > > To: sip:pbx1@sp.com > > Contact: <sip:10.10.10.10;bnc> > > PBX registers 2nd time to a different contact address... > > [3] --REGISTER--> > > To: sip:pbx1@sp.com > > Contact: <sip:192.168.2.1;bnc> > > [4] <--200OK -- > > To: sip:pbx1@sp.com > > Contact: <sip:192.168.2.1;bnc>, <sip:10.10.10.10;bnc> > > Would appreciate your input on a) is the above example correct, and b) > do we need an errata to RFC6140 to clarify this case? I'd like to hear what others have to say before deciding this. Thanks, Paul > Thanks > David > > > _______________________________________________ > martini mailing list > martini@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
- [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum.com… David Hancock
- Re: [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum… Adam Roach