Hi Jeroen,
I don't think there is any problem here. If the UAC wants to put
different Contact URIs with different reg-ids for the same instance-
id, that is the business of the UAC. For a specific instance the
authoritative proxy will pick one of the reg-ids and forward there.
If the proxy gets a 430 response it will try the next one. The proxy
will need to set the Request URI to the Contact URI of the desired
reg-id for each attempt.
thanks,
-rohan
On Apr 28, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
All,
While trying to implement GRUU and outbound in combination, I
stumbled upon a minor issue: what if the UAC uses different Contact
URIs when registering multiple flows. The examples in outbound
don't do this, but there is no explicit statement that this is not
allowed, and the example in 3.2 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]>;reg-id=1) could
be seen as suggesting that the registration with reg-id=2 would use
"line2"
See my previous mail: for GRUU this could mean that the authorative
proxy cannot select the right URI to rewrite with, there can be an
inconsistency between the temporary GRUU the UAC selected
(associated with a specific contact) and the request URI received.
One solution may be to adapt the algorithm used to generate
temporary GRUUs. A second option, which is perhaps simpler, is to
simply state in outbound that the UAC MUST use identical Contact
URIs when registering multiple flows (in section 4.2), and that the
authoritative proxy MAY select any one of the registered Contact
URIs to rewrite with (e.g. needed to cover transitional cases where
the UAC obtains a new IP address and starts re-registering)
Regards,
Jeroen
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
