Hi,
according to bis-05 statement as below:
1384 When the registrar has determined that the client is permitted to make
the request, the registrar MUST
1385 extract the address of record from the To header field of the
REGISTER. Note that the registrar MUST
1386 extract the entire To header field URI in order to use it as an index
in the location service.
It says entire URI in To- header has to be used as index. That too with
"MUST". Therefore both the addresses will have to be different
registrations.
I think this statement in draft bis-05 adds complexity.
Statement according to previous draft where it didnt give any explicit
statements on "how TO header has to be taken as key while doing
registrations".
This would let the implementer have his own policy as just considering
"user@domain" which was recommended in bis-04
regards,
Shetti
Shail Bhatnagar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 01/04/2002 10:06:46 AM
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Barry Desborough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sip-implementors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (bcc: Shrinivas Shetti/HSSBLR)
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] user=phone in registered addresses
Jonathan, Are you suggesting that following 2 registrations
should update the same record
To: <sip:1234@proxy;user=phone>
To: <sip:1234@proxy>
Is an implementation free to treat them as same or different ?
thanks,
Shail
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>
> Barry Desborough wrote:
>
> > Any opinions on this matter?
> >
> > Another manufacturer's UA is registering, using user=phone in its To:,
> > From:
> > and Contact: headers. My UA is a simple POTS access device. All the
user
> > can
> > do is enter telephone digits. When I try to call from my UA to the
other
> > device, omitting the user=phone parameter, the registrar can't resolve
> > the
> > URL.
> >
> > Now it seems to me that the user=phone parameter is only useful in the
> > Contact: header - the registration should be done without this
parameter
> > in
> > the To: and From: headers. After all, the registered address is a
pretty
> > abstract value - all that really matters is that the registrar can
> > resolve
> > the Contact: URL from it. Is this reasoning correct, or am I missing
> > something?
>
> This has been a continuing source of confusion, and is currently logged
> as issue #281, in fact.
>
> Generally, the mapping of an incoming request URI to obtain a key into
> the DB of registered contact is a matter of local policy, but it needs
> to be done in a consistent and coherent manner, in order to avoid
> interop problems. This particular item, use of user=phone, has been a
> source of trouble for some time.
>
> I believe that the correct thing to do in this particular case is that
> the registrar should not user the user=phone when using the
> address-of-record from the REGISTER. Furthermore, it ought to be
> stripped from the incoming r-uri, although it probably should not have
> been there in the first place if the caller has no idea about the
> meaning of the numbers being entered. Generally, the user=phone is in
> there if the number is known to represent a PSTN number, rather than
> just a string of digits that are of local significance.
>
> -Jonathan R.
>
> --
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue
> Chief Scientist First Floor
> dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.dynamicsoft.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
