Re: [sr-dev] - ims_registrar_scscf: fix multiple contacts in 200OK

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://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fska latan.de%2Fblog%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com% 7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1 %7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&a mp;sdata=UZfXR2G5v9MMjogqTCPes%2Blx%2FBTcJTrzA9082rIFv%2Fo%3D&res erved=0 Kamailio services - https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgil awa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060 a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0 %7C637908263631287730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata =yReM%2FnleLQ%2F6Ij2FVnI%2B3C8gmb7JYBjQRSw2OujcIeo%3D&reserved=0 -----Original Message----- From: sr-dev <sr-dev-bounces(a)lists.kamailio.org> On Behalf Of Scherney Theodor Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:34 AM To: sr-dev(a)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 alexyosifov(a)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://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack… ) : 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(a)lists.kamailio.org https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7 C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98 b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1 haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay %2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List sr-dev(a)lists.kamailio.org https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flis ts.kamailio.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsr-dev&data=05%7 C01%7Ctheodor.scherney%40kontron.com%7C500060a09bf447dadf3f08da4e2f98 b0%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637908263631287730%7C Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1 haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sKn1uNyrIob1Wda22ZmEvay %2FnIk6hn7hQ6IzyBBDNyU%3D&reserved=0