Hi Dean, How would the keep-alives work for 3rd party registration? How would I know that you have registered me, and that I now have to send keep-alives (and where I would have to send the keep-alives)?
And, how would you know if the flow that you have registered for me fails, in which case you should establish a new flow for me? Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Willis Sent: 17. lokakuuta 2008 17:36 To: SIP IETF Subject: [Sip] Question on non-outbound registrations in outbound The current draft says: 4.2.3. Non Outbound Registrations In an initial registration, a User Agent MUST NOT include a reg-id header parameter in the Contact header field if the registering UA is not the same instance as the UA referred to by the target Contact header field. (This practice is occasionally used to install forwarding policy into registrars.) A UAC also MUST NOT include an instance-id feature taf or reg-id Contact header field parameter in a request to un-register all Contacts (a single Contact header field value with the value of "*"). This strikes me as odd in several ways. The reg-id lets us know "which registration we are talking about". The instance-id lets us know "which specific UA-appearance we are talking about". So for a 3rd-party registration, it might be useful to have reg-id or instance-id values. Assume for example a voice-mail server that registers a low q-value contact for an AOR, so that calls will eventually reach it in a no-answer scenario. Withdrawing just those specific registrations would seem to require a selection mechanism from the set of registrations, and reg-id would appear to satisfy this need. In a different use case, assume a 3rd party registration is used to install forwarding policy. The use of an instance-id in such a registration would seem to allow the forwarding policy to target one specific instance of the set of contacts registered to the target. In other words, not "forward the call to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]", but "forward the call to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'s cell phone". Now it's entirely possible that neither of these scenarios actually work. But I don't see in the discussion of outbound anything about WHY they wouldn't work, which means that the requirements language (the MUST in outbound) is unsupported. I don't like unsupported requirements in a specification. -- Dean _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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 _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.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
