<moved to SIP-Implementors>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Radhika" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bob Penfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [Sipping] [SIP] Call- IDs for same user > Hello Bob, > > Yes, for registration expiry and for 2xx responses, even I think it is based > on user. But what about registration renewal? > Again, the key is the Contact headers in the REGISTER request. You match the URI in the Contact headers with the ones you have registered for that user. If there is a match, you update the expiration time with that in the REGISTER message. If there are Contacts that don't match your registry, you add them to your registry. The entries that were in your registry, but not in the Contacts, you leave unchanged. The client(s) must send subsequent REGISTER requests to renew their registrations. If they don't, they expire and are deleted from your registry. A given user (or even a given client) may have multiple registrations that they have sent you, but they can send a REGISTER request with only a subset of those Contacts for the purpose of updating just those entries. The only way for a client/user to remove a registration is to update it with an expiration time of 0. > Thanks and Regards, > Radhika > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bob Penfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Radhika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:46 PM > Subject: Re: [Sipping] [SIP] Call- IDs for same user > > > > Radhika, > > > > As bis-04 states, the URI in the To header is the "address of record" for > a > > registration. That identifies the "user". The requirement for using the > same > > Call-ID is for the "client" which is not the same thing. Given that, I > would > > think you would have a set of registrations for a given user keyed by URI > in > > the "To" header. If you receive another registration from a different > client > > (different Call-ID), but the same To, it would be the same user. Then it > > would be a matter of matching the Contact headers in the REGISTER with > those > > in the registration list. Contacts which match are updates to those > > registrations for that user. Unmatched Contacts would be additional > > registrations for that user. You would only delete a registration for a > user > > when it expires. > > > > A given user may have multiple SIP devices (i.e. clients) which register > > with the same registrar at the same time (e.g. office phone, home phone, > and > > mobile phone). > > > > A client can remove all registrations by specifying "*" as the Contact and > a > > 0 expiration. This brings up a couple of questions I have: > > > > 1) Does Contact:* with Expires:0 remove all registrations for the "user" > or > > all registrations for just that client (based on Call-ID)? I would think > it > > would be the user. > > > > 2) Does the 2xx response list all registrations for the "user" or for the > > "client" based on the Call-ID? Again I think it would be for the user. > > > > Anyone please correct me if I am wrong. > > > > I hope that helps. > > > > cheers, > > (-:bob > > > > Robert F. Penfield > > Chief Software Architect > > Acme Packet, Inc. > > 130 New Boston Street > > Woburn, MA 01801 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Radhika" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Sean Olson (EUS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Hammer" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 12:45 AM > > Subject: Re: [Sipping] [SIP] Call- IDs for same user > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am developing a Registrar, and my goal is to identify new > registrations, > > > registrations indicating shift of domains, renewal of registrations etc. > > > > > > However, how can I distinguish between registrations that are new, from > > > those that are renewed. > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > Radhika. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Michael Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: Sean Olson (EUS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: 'Radhika' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:35 PM > > > Subject: RE: [Sipping] [SIP] Call- IDs for same user > > > > > > > > > > Roy, > > > > > > > > You are touching on some of the problems we had in T1P1 with > > > distinguishing > > > > between a terminal registration and a personal registration. In the > > end, > > > > it seemed the mobile carriers focused more on terminal registration, > > > > although the subscription (IMSI) registration in GSM enables it to > > migrate > > > > from terminal to terminal. > > > > > > > > I would suspect that the two computers operate independently and the > > call > > > > IDs and Cseq will be independent. > > > > > > > > By user do you mean UA? From the registrars perspective these are > > > probably > > > > two different presences (?) being registered. I'm not sure if the > > > > registrar could deduce that user.host1@domain and user.host2@domain > are > > > the > > > > same user or not. The naming convention could be implementation > > > > specific. Is this a don't care? > > > > > > > > What is your goal? > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:03 AM 10/3/2001 -0500, Sean Olson (EUS) wrote: > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > > >From: Radhika > > [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:19 AM > > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >Subject: [Sipping] [SIP] Call- IDs for same user > > > > > > > > > >Hello, > > > > > > > > > >In RFC 2543, it is mentioned that the same user issuing multiple > > REGISTER > > > > >requests should have the same call-id (atleast within the same boot > > > cycle). > > > > > > > > > >Consider the following scenario : > > > > > > > > > >Computer1 (User A) Computer2 (User A) > > > > >( Callid = 1) ( Callid > > > > >=2) > > > > > ---------------- ----------------- > > > > >I l l l > > > > >I l l l > > > > >I l l l > > > > >I l l l > > > > > ---------------- ------------------ > > > > >Registrations performed from each computer > > > > > > > > > >Computer 1 = R11, R12 > > > > >Computer 2 = R21, R22 > > > > > > > > > >Regarding the same I have the following queries: > > > > >1) If the same user agent ( ie the same user ) logs in from 2 > different > > > > >computers, 2 REGISTER requests will be sent ( may or may not be > > > > >simultaneously ). In this case, should they have different call-ids ? > > (ie > > > > >Callid = 1) > > > > > > > > > >The situation you are talking about actually involves two separate > user > > > > >agents and > > > > >therefore separate call IDs for computer1 and computer2 are > > appropriate. > > > > > > > > > >2) Since multiple registrations are allowed from the same callid, the > > > only > > > > >distinguishing criteria between registrations from same callid will > be > > > the > > > > >CSeq no. If a new registration is to be added by user A from > Computer1, > > > > >then it will have a higher CSeq no. > > > > > > > > > >But, if an already existing registration ( R11 of Callid = 1) needs > to > > be > > > > >refreshed before it expires, then a REGISTER request for the same > needs > > > to > > > > >be issued. > > > > > > > > > >Well, first computer1 and computer2 will use different call-IDs. > > Second, > > > > >computer1 and computer2 will have different From: tags. The CSeq: > space > > > > >will be distinct between computer1 and computer2 because they have > > > distinct > > > > >call legs. > > > > > > > > > >How do I distinguish between a new registration for the same callid, > > and > > > > >registration renewal for an existing one? > > > > > > > > > >In general, you don't have to. If anyone needs to make a distinction, > > it > > > > >is the > > > > >registrar. The registrar uses its internal state information about > > > current > > > > >registrations > > > > >to determine that a REGISTER is a re-registration or a fresh > > > registration. > > > > >IMHO, > > > > >tying the Call-ID to this state is a BAD idea. > > > > > > > > > >Can the CSeq for the original request and the renewal request be the > > > same? > > > > > > > > > >No. A new request must also increment the CSeq: > > > > > > > > > >Thanks and regards, > > > > >Radhika. > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > >Sean Olson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sipping mailing list http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping > > > This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP > > > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > > > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments of core SIP > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
