Thanks Guys! On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Dale Worley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 14:18 -0800, cool goose wrote: > > Sec 10.3 Point #7 specifies the below: > > > > "If the Call-ID value in the existing binding differs from the > > Call-ID value in the request, the binding MUST be removed if > > the expiration time is zero and updated otherwise." > > > > Does this mean that the Register requests from same UA can have > > different Call-IDs as long as the CSeq values are not the same? > > If two requests have different Call-Ids, their CSeq values are not > related to each other. > > In regard to registrations, if a series of REGISTERs have the same > Call-Id, then the CSeq values provide protection in case the messages > arrive out of order -- the message with the largest CSeq (which must > have been sent last) controls the result. > > If a series of REGISTERs have different Call-Ids, then there is no > protection against message reordering, and the last one that arrives at > the registrar controls the result. This is less desirable, but is the > only way to allow a UA that has been rebooted to remove "dangling" > registrations that the UA established prior to rebooting. > > Dale > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
