James Undery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > Approach 1 described below is illegal and really going to mess up > transaction ids. Approach two is the correct way to do it. (Registering > tel-URLs is meaningless in my opinion, you want to change the ENUM records > not a SIP registration.)
Why do you say a tel-URL is meaningless? If I have an a SIP Phone and an old fashioned PSTN phone, I might want to register both with my local proxy so that it could direct calls to my PSTN phone via some gateway that would be located using something like a TRIP Location Server. Or would I have to convert the tel URL to a SIP URL? > > > James Undery > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hiroshi Waki > > Sent: 30 August 2001 11:51 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Multiple To headers in Register messages > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > This is Hiroshi Waki of NTT, Japan. > > > > I have a question concerning the usage of To header in Register Method. > > > > Please suppose that the registrand has two or more address-of-records, > > for example, SIP-URL and tel-URL, and it wants a registrar to register > > one or more addresses described in Contact headers for each > > address-of-record > > of the registrand. > > > > In what way should the registrand send the To headers to the registrar? > > Such the way doesn't seem to be described in current bis04 draft. > > > > > > I suppose two approaches below. > > > > Approach1: Multiple To headers in a single REGISTER method > > Approach2: Single To header in multiple REGISTER methods > > > > Example; > > UserA on the Terminal1(term1.sip.com) sends the REGISTER request > > to the registrar R(R.sip.com). UserA has two address-of-records, > > for example, "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and "tel:+81-123-4567". > > These addresses are identical in terms of the network service > > provider. UserA wants to register some addresses, which are > > "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone","tel:+81-123-4567", > > "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]", "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and so on. > > In each case below, Via,Call-ID,CSeq and Content-Length > > headers are omitted. > > > > In the case for the Approach1; > > (Term1 -> R) > > REGISTER R.sip.com SIP/2.0 > > From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: tel:+81-123-4567 > > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone> > > Contact: tel:+81-123-4567 > > > > In the case for the Approach2; > > (Term1 -> R) > > REGISTER R.sip.com SIP/2.0 > > From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone> > > Contact: tel:+81-123-4567 > > > > (Term1 -> R) > > REGISTER R.sip.com SIP/2.0 > > From: tel:+81-123-4567 > > To: tel:+81-123-4567 > > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone> > > Contact: tel:+81-123-4567 > > > > Which approach is valid for the registration described above? > > Or is there any approach? > > > > I think the Approach1 is preferable because of the less number of > > messages. > > > > Regards, > > Hiroshi Waki > > --- > > Hiroshi Waki > > NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories > > tel +81 422 59 3404 fax +81 422 59 3494 > > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
