Patches item #3035778, was opened at 2010-07-28 10:04 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by miconda You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743022&aid=3035778...
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: modules Group: ver 1.5.x Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Alex Hermann (axlh) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Fix registrar when fetching binding for unregistered user
Initial Comment: When an UA fetches the bindings for a user and the user isn't registered, properly return an empty contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Daniel-Constantin Mierla (miconda)
Date: 2010-07-28 10:07
Message: Can you use the tracker at sip-router.org? http://sip-router.org/tracker/
SF tracker should not be used anymore for new items.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743022&aid=3035778...
On Wednesday 28 July 2010, SourceForge.net wrote:
Initial Comment: When an UA fetches the bindings for a user and the user isn't registered, properly return an empty contact.
Hi Alex,
may i ask what is returned currently according your tests?
Cheers,
Henning
2010/7/28 Henning Westerholt henning.westerholt@1und1.de:
On Wednesday 28 July 2010, SourceForge.net wrote:
Initial Comment: When an UA fetches the bindings for a user and the user isn't registered, properly return an empty contact.
Hi Alex,
may i ask what is returned currently according your tests?
A "Contact" header with no value is *not* valid according to SIP BNF grammar (I'vechecked it), so in case a UA fetches its bindging and there are not bindings then the registrar should reply a 200 without "Contact" header. Taking this into account I suspect that this commit is wrong ("properly return an empty contact").
As a side note, there is a bug/issue open for RFC 3261 related to this topic as the RFC 3261 seems to state that the registrar should reply a 200 with a Contact header containing all the bindings. But it's clear (also in the RFC bug report) that the BNF grammar cannot be violated so there should be NO Contact header if there are no bindings.
2010/7/28 Iñaki Baz Castillo ibc@aliax.net:
A "Contact" header with no value is *not* valid according to SIP BNF grammar (I'vechecked it), so in case a UA fetches its bindging and there are not bindings then the registrar should reply a 200 without "Contact" header. Taking this into account I suspect that this commit is wrong ("properly return an empty contact").
Well, fortuantelly there is no commit about it, but just a report (please use http://sip-router.org/tracker instead). However as explained above this report is invalid.
-
Henning Westerholt -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
SourceForge.net