http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schulzrinne-sip-register-00.txt
HI All,
I have some doubts regarding the draft about the sip registration. For your
reference I have given the link of the draft here
1. The draft is supposed to expire in Feb 2001, ( I presumed this date, since
I felt there is a mistake with the expiry date. Because the draft is written
on oct 2000, and expiry date is mentioned as Feb 2000 !!) so is there any
updated version of this draft available ?
2. When the draft talks about stale registration it mentions that "Recipients
of misdirected requests SHOULD respond with 404 (Not Found), which then
allows the proxy to remove the registration.". Is it the same in all cases ?
I mean even if the proxy gets a 404 response because of some other reason
apart from that due to stale registration, should the proxy follow the same
procedure ?
3. To avoid stale registration author suggests to use tag in the contact
header field when the REGISTER request is sent. I just want know if this is a
proposed change for the RFC, has any one started implementing this ?
4. While discussing the registration models, outbound proxy intercept
mentions that "As a simple precaution, proxies in visited networks can
simply disallow changes of IP addresses for visiting users; however, that
then only allows a single instance of a visiting user per visited network. "
Does n't it defeat the whole purpose of having personal mobility .
Thanks
Shashi
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
