[sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple contacts
Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com> Thu, 03 May 2012 11:00 UTC
Return-Path: <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289AE21F855A for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2012 04:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 tH41gSnFHCwr for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2012 03:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1051D21F84F0 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 May 2012 03:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7b07ae000006839-6f-4fa2652d32d1
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9D.80.26681.D2562AF4; Thu, 3 May 2012 12:59:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.5]) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.84]) with mapi; Thu, 3 May 2012 12:59:56 +0200
From: Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>
To: "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 12:59:56 +0200
Thread-Topic: RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple contacts
Thread-Index: Ac0pG+Agd7EhJGWVQWCqariXDqhddw==
Message-ID: <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E3BB890@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E3BB890ESESSCMS0360e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple contacts
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 11:00:00 -0000
Hello, can I please get experts' view on the issue below? Use case: - the UA contains several applications - each application is associated with a unique contact - all contacts of all the applications have the same IP address and port - the UA registers all contacts of all the applications using a single REGISTER request, as due to the potentially large number of applications it is not feasible to register each contact individually As long as outbound is NOT used, this works correctly. Issue: Once the UA would like to create several registration flows using outbound for reliability, the REGISTER request with multiple contacts sent by the UA can be rejected by the registrar since RFC5626 states: --------------------------------- Therefore, if the Contact header field contains more than one header field value with a non-zero expiration and any of these header field values contain a "reg-id" Contact header field parameter, the entire registration SHOULD be rejected with a 400 (Bad Request) response. The justification for recommending rejection versus making it mandatory is that the receiver is allowed by [RFC3261] to squelch (not respond to) excessively malformed or malicious messages. --------------------------------- I can understand the reason for rejection where the contacts represent different UA instances, or have different IP addresses or ports. However, the same sip.instance *and* the same IP address and port are used in each of the contact registered by the REGISTER request in the case above. I also assume that the reg-id would be the same for each contact associated with a given flow. Is there a reason why REGISTER with multiple contacts, each having the same sip.instance, the same IP address and port and the same reg-id, should be rejected? Thank you for clarification. Kind regards Ivo Sedlacek Ericsson GF Technology, Terminal Standardization Sweden Office: +46 10 711 9382 ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com www.ericsson.com This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the term set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer
- [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple cont… Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple … Ivo Sedlacek