Re: [SR-Users] simple test case: add user/delete user on kamailio 3.3 presence server

Hello,

you have to share the content of the messages sent, providing just the url is not enough to see what happens.

watchers table is for the list of contacts and their global status in regard to presentity, active_watchers is for keeping the presence dialogs.

Cheers, Daniel

On 6/19/12 12:47 PM, Min Wang wrote:

Hi

(1) I tested more. It is due to the difference between bria 3 and jitsi while handling the adding/removing contact:

if contact is added/removed:

for jitsi, it send out:

PUT /xcap-root/resource-lists/users/sip:101@192.168.122.32/index PUT /xcap-root/pres-rules/users/sip:101@192.168.122.32/presrules

for bria 3, it only send out

PUT 

/xcap-root/resource-lists/users/101@192.168.122.32/contacts-resource-list.xml HTTP/1.0. PUT /xcap-root/resource-lists/users/101@192.168.122.32/contacts-resource-list.xml

it does NOT send out the pres-rules.

Is it the good behavior ( from RFC point of view) ?
should I call the pres_update_watchers even though its is for 

resource-lists?

(2) BTW, what is the exact purpose of watcher table?

e.g: on 101, if delete 103, watcher table become:

    id    presentity_uri                  watcher_username 

watcher_domain event status reason inserted_time 1 sip:103@192.168.122.32 101 192.168.122.32 presence 1 1340096051 2 sip:101@192.168.122.32 103 192.168.122.32 presence 3 terminated 1340096181

it is item 2 become terminated instead of item 1. If watcher table 

is for subscription, then seems item 1 should be terminated? Look at the code, it seems somehow serve as mixed role of subscription/auth/xcap purpose, not for subscription state?

and is the active_watcher  mainly for the state machine of 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3857#section-4.7.1?

thanks.

min

On 06/19/2012 10:41 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:

...

Hello,

On 6/18/12 2:11 PM, Andreas Granig wrote:

...

Hi,

On 06/15/2012 05:25 PM, Min Wang wrote:

...

| 1 | sip:103@192.168.122.32 | 101 | 192.168.122.32 | presence | 2 | | 1339772803 |

then I deleted the 103 from the contact list, the watcher table 

still shows the same.

For local storage, I'd expect an unsubscribe (subscribe with Expires=0) from 101 to 103. The obvious work-flow would be to set it to "terminated" in watchers table, and in case of a subsequent re-subscribe it should be changed back to "pending" state, although the state-machine doesn't indicate a transition from "terminated" back to "pending". Isn't this the case?

For xcap storage, there are other ways to block/remove a contact on/from the list. As Iñaki pointed out in http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/devel/2009-August/003868.html, the xcap server needs to notify the sip server about the change, which in turn will notify the other party (103) that it's no longer allowed to see 101's state. If the xcap_server module of kamailio is used, there is the following code snippet in some examples floating around on the internet:

switch($rm) { case "PUT": xcaps_put("$var(uri)", "$hu", "$rb"); if($xcapuri(u=>auid)=~"pres-rules") { pres_update_watchers("$var(uri)", "presence"); pres_refresh_watchers("$var(uri)", "presence", 1); }

So, shouldn't this update the watchers accordingly? Anyways, also in this case the watcher state should change to "terminated", and in case of a re-subscribe it should go back to pending if xcap rules are allowing this.

Maybe someone with good xcap_server/presence insights could elaborate on that?

to summarize, you say that when the contact is removed from the buddy list, the watcher table is not updated to state terminated by pres_update_watchers(...)?

Cheers, Daniel