IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] RFC5626 and REGISTER with multiple contacts

"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> Tue, 08 May 2012 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <kpfleming@digium.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 5278921F84F0 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 07:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.139
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fRd53t0F-PEu for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 07:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.digium.com (mail.digium.com [216.207.245.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8045D21F8541 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 07:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.24.55.203] (helo=zimbra.hsv.digium.com) by mail.digium.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kpfleming@digium.com>) id 1SRlRA-0004dd-Bs for sipcore@ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2012 09:30:48 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555A8D8004 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 09:30:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from zimbra.hsv.digium.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.hsv.digium.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jQtiAQbv1lG6 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 09:30:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [10.24.250.46] (unknown [10.24.250.46]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBBD2D8002 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 09:30:47 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4FA92E05.4060709@digium.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 09:30:29 -0500
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
Organization: Digium, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sipcore@ietf.org
References: <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E3BB890@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E3BBDF5@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <CALiegfk5t5p=sw0MVcrzVshYs2Z3kiw0KYmqzLRGmdcPZj3YfA@mail.gmail.com> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E3BBEA3@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4FA3EFD8.2080903@digium.com> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E438967@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4FA7D98E.8090100@alum.mit.edu> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E438E96@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <CALiegfkjp=V8ZHZRuD7atXN5eqNbrXnO8tVxc9-U8k=637Ok9Q@mail.gmail.com> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E438EF2@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <CALiegfkBge3QWUVdk01bAOtqLA9UGN2meoR4Aoc_LJjfUGyMvg@mail.gmail.com> <3A324A65CCACC64289667DFAC0B88E12197E438F2D@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4FA92331.5010001@alum.mit.edu> <CALiegfkhGow1kQF7cWz05CdpE9GO+h2M_Qmn0FtKnGRQtAbH2g@mail.gmail.com> <4FA928C6.4040302@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4FA928C6.4040302@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 08 May 2012 14:30:50 -0000

On 05/08/2012 09:08 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 5/8/12 9:56 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> 2012/5/8 Paul Kyzivat<pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>:
>>> I understand Ivo's point here - AFAIK there is no better way to indicate
>>> mutually exclusive capabilities.
>>
>> ok, so then it's seems more an issue in RFC 3840/3841, am I right?
>
> It could be viewed that way - its a limitation.
> Clearly you *can* work around the limitation in the way Ivo has shown.
> But that has consequences of its own. But its far from clear that it is
> enough of a problem to motivate seeking a better solution.

Another workaround would be for the endpoint that embeds multiple UAs 
(in SIP terminology) with mutually exclusive sets of capabilities to 
just REGISTER multiple distinct Contact URIs, including sip.instance 
values and all other necessary parameters.

As previously discussed in this thread, RFC5626 may state that this is 
not supported, but nobody has indicated any reason why it wouldn't work. 
Registering multiple contacts with the *same* sip.instance value is 
known to be likely not to work with various registrars.

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

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status