Hello Barry,
Well, same Call-ID for all REGISTERs does seem to be less elegant. But, actually its very neat. What does Call-ID represent? A Call. What exactly is a call? A communication relationship between two parties existing for a period of time. For Registration who are the parties? One is the registrar, another is the ua representing the uri. What kind of relationship exist between them? Does the nature of relationship change for the same ua and same registrar? No. What can change is the location info that the ua supplies to the registrar. For a single boot cycle, the relationship between ua and registrar, is basically the same. Each REGISTER request in that cycle essentially represents new location info. So, wrt the registrar, every new REGISTER msg from the same ua actually is a new transaction in their existing relationship. Hope, it looks more elegant now. Well it will take some time for these concepts to crystalize. Regards, -Manish S. Jalan On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 Barry Desborough wrote : > Thanks for pointing out the text for the correct > behaviour, Seshu. I can now > see that it is correct, but it's not elegant! I can't > see why an entirely > new request wouldn't do the job. Perhaps the SHOULD > should be a MAY... > > Barry Desborough > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 18 December 2001 12:59 > To: Barry Desborough > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Response to 401/407 > > > Hi, > The subsequent request is always sent by the UAC and > it has the same > call-id > with the incremented CSeq number.The UAC doesn't copy > the To Tag in the > subsequent request for 401/407 responses. > > Quoted from the bis-05, line 1013. > "In all of the above cases, retrying the request is > accomplished by > creating a new request with the appro- > priate modifications. This new request SHOULD have the > same value of the > Call the CSeq should contain a new > sequence number that is > one higher than the previous." > > Rgds > Seshu > > > > > > > > > Barry Desborough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/18/2001 > 05:46:27 PM > > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] (E-mail)" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: (bcc: Seshashayi T/HSSBLR) > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Response to 401/407 > > > > > If I issue a REGISTER request which gets a 401 or 407 > response, how should > my new request (with credentials) be formed? > > Can I use a new Call-ID in the new request? If so, is > it necessary to > increment the CSeq from the original request, as stated > in 20.2.2 of > bis-05? > I think not, as the new Call-ID implies a new dialog. > > If I must use the Call-ID from the original request, > and the 401/407 > response carried a To: tag, should I include this tag > in my new request? It > seems to me that I should, as retaining the original > Call-ID and > incrementing the CSeq implies that the original dialog > is still in > existence. I have an interworking problem if I do carry > the To: tag, and I > have a philosophical problem if I don't! > > Barry Desborough > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implem- > entors > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implem- > entors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
