From: "Bob Penfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This is not correct. If the two contact addresses are different, there will still be two bindings for the address-of-record. The fact that the two REGISTER messages have the same Call-ID does not cause the second REGISTER to "replace" the binding of the first unless it is the same address.
Ugh, yes, that's my mistake. The rules are in section 10.3, section 7, though they're not clearly presented. The Call-Id and CSeq values (which define the pseudo-dialogs) are used to determine which REGISTERs can revise the bindings created by which REGISTERs. The processing is done on a per-contact-URI basis, if two REGISTERs that contain the same contact have the same Call-Id, the one with the largest CSeq wins, but if the two REGISTERs have different Call-Ids, the one that arrives last wins. So if one pseudo-dialog contains updates for two contacts, each contact is updated independently of the other, as if the REGISTERs not mentioning that contact don't exist. In the perverse case of two pseudo-dialogs containing updates for one contact, the likely result is that the last REGISTER to arrive at the registrar will take precedence, rather than the registrar detecting out-of-order REGISTERs using the CSeq value. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
