For greater flexibility, the option should not be a module param, instead a flag for save, so the two options can be used simultaneously. Also, all the functions provided by the ims_registrar_scscf should have the "scscf_" prefix, just like the ims_registrar_pcscf module to avoid overlapping with the generic registrar module.
-ovidiu On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:59 AM Aleksandar Yosifov <a.v.yosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > The changes were made a long time ago. What I can say is that I confirm with > both of you. I will add a new option and return the original behaviour > following the RFC. > > BR > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:12 PM Henning Westerholt <h...@gilawa.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I think you are right; a registrar should respond with multiple bindings in >> case of multiple bindings. >> >> There might be a good reason for this change, maybe Aleksandar can comment. >> But with my current information I would say it should be probably made >> configurable; keeping the previous behaviour according to the standard as >> default. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Henning >> >> -- >> Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/ >> Kamailio services - https://gilawa.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sr-dev <sr-dev-boun...@lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Scherney >> Theodor >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM >> To: sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org >> Subject: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK >> >> Dear developer, >> >> we have a question about the reasons of the changes made in this commit to >> Kamailio module ims_registrar_scscf >> >> commit 23341c60519bd3e8eb91974c7aca0b283735665e >> Author: Aleksandar Yosifov alexyosi...@gmail.com >> Date: Thu May 7 15:51:34 2020 +0300 >> ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK >> - Prevent sending of multiple contacts in 200OK reply >> for UE Re-Registration. Now S-CSCF replies with the >> exact contact for Re-Registration. >> >> We read in Section 10.3 "Processing REGISTER Requests" of the RFC3261 ( >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3261#section-10.3 ) : >> >> 8. The registrar returns a 200 (OK) response. The response MUST contain >> Contact header field values enumerating all current bindings. >> >> We have a test case where for one single IMPU there are two different >> consecutive REGISTER using different combination of IP/port. >> Running our testcase on a version previous your commit, the 200OK of the >> second registration lists 2 bindings (correctly, as we expect by the RFC). >> After your commit, in this testcase, the 200OK lists only one binding. It >> seems that the changes in your commit do not match the RFC specifications. >> Can you please explain why these changes have been made? >> >> Thanks and Kind Regards, >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List >> sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List > sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org > https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev -- VoIP Embedded, Inc. http://www.voipembedded.com _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
