Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Hi, Check this one d772f47ba196633c53504677103626ecc1904d54 from master. On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:29 PM Scherney Theodor < theodor.scher...@kontron.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks! > Can you please give me details about the commit, to fall back to that > changes. > > BR > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: sr-dev Im Auftrag von Ovidiu Sas > Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juni 2022 19:58 > An: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List > Cc: Aleksandar Yosifov > Betreff: Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK > > [You don't often get email from o...@voipembedded.com. Learn why this is > important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param, instead > a flag for save, so the two options can be used simultaneously. > Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should have > the "scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to avoid > overlapping with the generic registrar module. > > -ovidiu > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm > with both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour > following the RFC. > > > > BR > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple > bindings in case of multiple bindings. > >> > >> There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can > comment. > >> But with my current information I would say it should be probably made > configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as > default. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Henning > >> > >> -- > >> Henning Westerholt - > >> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fska > >> latan.de%2Fblog%2Fdata=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com% > >> 7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1 > >> %7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA > >> wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C > >> mp;sdata=UZfXR2G5v9MMjogqTCPes%2Blx%2FBTcJTrzA9082rIFv%2Fo%3Dres > >> erved=0 Kamailio services - > >> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgil > >> awa.com%2Fdata=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060 > >> a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0 > >> %7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ > >> QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata > >> =yReM%2FnleLQ%2F6Ij2FVnI%2B3C8gmb7JYBjQRSw2OujcIeo%3Dreserved=0 > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: sr-dev On Behalf Of > >> Scherney Theodor > >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM > >> To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org > >> Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in > >> 200OK > >> > >> Dear developer, > >> > >> we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this > >> commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf > >> > >> commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e > >> Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosi...@gmail.com > >> Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 > >> ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK > >> - Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply > >> for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the > >> exact contact for Re-Registration. > >> > >> We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( > https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc3261%23section-10.3data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=iRljjgDnOQqEMMKqqH8bKfiWd%2FEhjpq%2FNz2t6WD%2B5ik%3Dreserved=0 > ) : > >> > >> 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST > contain Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings. > >> > >> We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different > consecutive REGISTER using different combinati
Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Hi, Thanks! Can you please give me details about the commit, to fall back to that changes. BR -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: sr-dev Im Auftrag von Ovidiu Sas Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Juni 2022 19:58 An: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List Cc: Aleksandar Yosifov Betreff: Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK [You don't often get email from o...@voipembedded.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param, instead a flag for save, so the two options can be used simultaneously. Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should have the "scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to avoid overlapping with the generic registrar module. -ovidiu On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov wrote: > > Hi all, > The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm with > both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour > following the RFC. > > BR > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in >> case of multiple bindings. >> >> There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment. >> But with my current information I would say it should be probably made >> configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as >> default. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Henning >> >> -- >> Henning Westerholt - >> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fska >> latan.de%2Fblog%2Fdata=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com% >> 7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1 >> %7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA >> wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C >> mp;sdata=UZfXR2G5v9MMjogqTCPes%2Blx%2FBTcJTrzA9082rIFv%2Fo%3Dres >> erved=0 Kamailio services - >> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgil >> awa.com%2Fdata=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060 >> a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0 >> %7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ >> QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata >> =yReM%2FnleLQ%2F6Ij2FVnI%2B3C8gmb7JYBjQRSw2OujcIeo%3Dreserved=0 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: sr-dev On Behalf Of >> Scherney Theodor >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM >> To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org >> Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in >> 200OK >> >> Dear developer, >> >> we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this >> commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf >> >> commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e >> Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosi...@gmail.com >> Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 >> ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK >> - Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply >> for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the >> exact contact for Re-Registration. >> >> We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( >> https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc3261%23section-10.3data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=iRljjgDnOQqEMMKqqH8bKfiWd%2FEhjpq%2FNz2t6WD%2B5ik%3Dreserved=0 >> ) : >> >> 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain >> Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings. >> >> We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different >> consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port. >> Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the >> second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). >> After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It >> seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. >> Can you please explain why these changes have been made? >> >> Thanks and Kind Regards, >> >> ___ >> Kamailio (SER) - Develo
Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param, instead a flag for save, so the two options can be used simultaneously. Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should have the "scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to avoid overlapping with the generic registrar module. -ovidiu On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov wrote: > > Hi all, > The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm with > both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour > following the RFC. > > BR > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in >> case of multiple bindings. >> >> There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment. >> But with my current information I would say it should be probably made >> configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as >> default. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Henning >> >> -- >> Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ >> Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com >> >> -Original Message- >> From: sr-dev On Behalf Of Scherney >> Theodor >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM >> To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org >> Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK >> >> Dear developer, >> >> we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to >> Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf >> >> commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e >> Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosi...@gmail.com >> Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 >> ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK >> - Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply >> for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the >> exact contact for Re-Registration. >> >> We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) : >> >> 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain >> Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings. >> >> We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different >> consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port. >> Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the >> second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). >> After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It >> seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. >> Can you please explain why these changes have been made? >> >> Thanks and Kind Regards, >> >> ___ >> Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev >> >> ___ >> Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List >> sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev > > ___ > Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List > sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev -- VoIP Embedded, Inc. http://www.voipembedded.com ___ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Hi all, The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm with both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour following the RFC. BR On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt wrote: > Hello, > > I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings > in case of multiple bindings. > > There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment. > But with my current information I would say it should be probably made > configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as > default. > > Cheers, > > Henning > > -- > Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ > Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com > > -Original Message- > From: sr-dev On Behalf Of Scherney > Theodor > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM > To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org > Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK > > Dear developer, > > we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to > Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf > > commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e > Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosi...@gmail.com > Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 > ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK > - Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply > for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the > exact contact for Re-Registration. > > We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) : > > 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain > Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings. > > We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different > consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port. > Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the > second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). > After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It > seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. > Can you please explain why these changes have been made? > > Thanks and Kind Regards, > > ___ > Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev > > ___ > Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List > sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev > ___ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK
Hello, I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in case of multiple bindings. There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment. But with my current information I would say it should be probably made configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as default. Cheers, Henning -- Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com -Original Message- From: sr-dev On Behalf Of Scherney Theodor Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK Dear developer, we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosi...@gmail.com Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK - Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the exact contact for Re-Registration. We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) : 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings. We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port. Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. Can you please explain why these changes have been made? Thanks and Kind Regards, ___ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev ___ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
