As far as the ietf sip specs are concerned, a registration is not
required to have an active call. So there is certainly no reason to tear
a call down because the registration has gone away or changed.
Also, the receipt of a register with a different call-id shouldn't be
upsetting at all. This could happen because a 2nd UA has decided to
register, while the first remains registered. It could also happen
because the first UA has forgotten the call-id it used to register
previously. Neither of these actions is a crime.
And, in general you can't assume that the proxy associated with the
registrar is capable of tearing down an existing call. In fact, if it is
a proxy it can't. To tear down the call it would need to be a B2BUA.
Having said all that, if registrar/b2bua is capable of tearing down a
call in this case, it is *allowed* to do so, as a matter of policy, if
it desires. Just don't look to the ietf specs for justification for this
policy.
Paul
Kevin Leima wrote:
> Should the receipt of a REGISTER message with a different call-id at the
> registrar while the two
> UAs in question have an active call in progress cause the registrar to
> tear down the active call?
>
> -Kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
