Re: [martini] pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu; adam@nostrum.com; HKaplan@acmepacket.com; g.russell@cablelabs.com

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