Paul,
Okay this is exactly what I was thinking. This situation can be fixed
fairly easily without changes to any spec.
REGISTER sip:acme.com SIP/2.0
To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; expires=4294967295; language="en",
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; expires=4294967295; language="es"
So the system admin sets up the english and spanish aliases (for the
max possible time), Joe then comes in and registers
REGISTER sip:acme.com SIP/2.0
To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; q=1.0
REGISTER sip:acme.com SIP/2.0
To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; q=0.2
I guess you can see how Jose will register so I'll leave that out.
Anyway, the desired effect is achived, without breaking existing SIP
URI matching and registration rules.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 15 October 2001 23:30
> To: James Undery
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Re: Need clarification on
> callerprefs
>
>
> James,
>
> OK, I guess I need to explain further. I agree that on the surface
> Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="en"; q=1.0,
> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="es"; q=0.2
>
> may seem a little silly. But it isn't if you consider it in a larger
> context:
>
> REGISTER sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
> From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="en"; q=1.0,
> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="es"; q=0.2
>
> REGISTER sip:acme.com SIP/2.0
> From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="en"; q=0.2,
> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="es"; q=1.0
>
> Calls to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be sent to the best available registered
> contact address. If both joe and jose are registered, then
> english calls
> will go to joe and spanish calls will go to jose. But if only one of
> them is registered, then both kinds of calls will go to
> whoever it is.
>
> Paul
>
>
> James Undery wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am a bit behind on this so forgive my
> ignorance, comments inline
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > > Paul Kyzivat
> > > Sent: 12 October 2001 16:22
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Re: Need clarification on
> callerprefs
> > >
> > >
> > > I have another question about callerprefs, in addition to
> > > the earlier
> > > messages I have posted on this subject. This is
> primarily a question
> > > about the handling of REGISTER by a registrar, but the
> question only
> > > makes sense in the context of the changes to the Contact
> > > header proposed
> > > in draft-ietf-sip-callerprefs-04.
> > >
> > > Section 5.1 says: "This specification adds the
> following extension
> > > parameters to the Contact header field ... These parameters
> > > apply to a
> > > single URI. When used in a Contact header, they specify
> > > characteristics
> > > of the URI in the header."
> > >
> > > Now, suppose I want to specify that a given URI is
> fully capable in
> > > English and slightly capable in Spanish. This is a
> > > reasonable thing to
> > > want to specify, and there seems to be a way to do it:
> > >
> > > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="en"; q=1.0,
> > > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="es"; q=0.2
> >
> > I don't really follow what you are trying to do here, the above
> > registration will route both Spanish and English requests
> to the the
> > same location. Surely a more common registration would be
> >
> > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="en"; q=1.0,
> > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="es"; q=0.2
> >
> > all your concerns are based around the fact you want to
> route to the
> > same URI, if joe can handle both English and Spanish at the same
> > location what's the problem.
> >
> > > My question is: is this a legal construction in a
> Contact header?
> > > Normally, if there had been a prior registration of
> > >
> > > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="en"; q=1.0
> > >
> > > and a new registration was received containing
> > >
> > > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; language="es"; q=0.2
> > >
> > > then the new contact would *replace* the old one. As far as
> > > I can tell,
> > > the bis is silent on what should happen if two contacts
> > > with the same
> > > URI are present in the same register request. I can see
> > > three possible
> > > interpretations:
> > >
> > > 1) upon receipt of the REGISTER request, the registrar
> > > first removes any
> > > previously registered contact entries that match any of
> the contact
> > > entries in this REGISTER request. Then all the contact
> > > entries in this
> > > register request are saved.
> > >
> > > 2) a REGISTER request with multiple contact entries is
> > > processed much
> > > like multiple REGISTER requests each with a single contact
> > > entry. If two
> > > contact entries mention the same URI, each one in turn
> replaces the
> > > previous one. Only the last remains. No error occurs.
> > >
> > > 3) a REGISTER request with multiple contact entries
> > > containing the same
> > > URI is considered erroneous, and results in an error
> such as 400 Bad
> > > Request.
> > >
> > > Of these, (1) is compatible with the example above
> while the others
> > > aren't. (2) is a silly interpretation - it is never useful.
> > > (3) forbids
> > > a useful application and is extra work to detect.
> >
> > I'd go with 2 here and agree it's a silly interpretation,
> but add it
> > was also a silly request and clarify the situation in the
> 200 Okay.
> >
> > James
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
