Hi Anca:
Thanks again!
please see my comment inline:
The "terminated" reason that is sent now, I
think it's a bug, it was
probably mistaken with the Subscription-Status.
Yes, I guess so.
Let's say user A deletes user B from its contact list. Let's say
user B will receive a Notify with reason 'rejected'. In this moment
user B could also delete the authorization rule for user A.
Yah it could
be. But from pure end user point of view, it is
some kind of werid.
B already allowed A to see its status. Why should B disable A
to see its status just because of A's behavior ( disable B to its status).
A, B should be independent of its contact list and pres-rules.
e.g: B is kind of generous people, do not mind A's behavior.
From my test with (jitsi with reason=rejected), jitsi B will
not update any of its pres-rules/resource-list etc.
User B will be allowed again to see the presence of user A when
user A will add B again in its contact list. This is the moment when
you wanted to announce user B to subscribe again. This is actually be
achieved, as user B will receive a Notification for presence.winfo
that the user A requests authorization. And in this case probably most
of the clients ask if you want to add that user in your contact list
also. And this is the moment when user B will subscribe again to user A.
Yah, you are right. that could be the moment. I remembered
from my trace I do see the Kamailio send out presence.winfo ( active) to
B ( in this case B did not remove this pres-rules , otherwise the
presence.winfo will be pending), unfornately jitsi B did nothing for
this case of active presence.winfo.
From strict RFC point of view, sending presence.winfo does
not mean B need to re-subscribe to A, this is our interpretation to
solve this issue. So we have to convince the client people to do this
way. will this behavior break any other things?
I found similar call flow on Oracle site, it is:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17667_01/doc.50/e17669/cpt_concepts.htm#
in the Changing Presence Rules section:
5. Because Alice's updated policy does not authorize Bob
as a watcher, the presence server sends a NOTIFY request to Bob's
client, notifying him that his subscription is terminated. In the NOTIFY
request, the Subscription-State header specifies terminated and the
reason is set to probation. This ends Bob's subscription with the
presence server and also ends the underlying SIP dialog. Bob's client
responds with a 200 OK message.
It uses **probation** as the reason for updated xcap policy.
Not sure if it is OMA standard or not or just Oracle interpretation.
kind regards.
min
There can be some other way to that the client knows to reSubscribe
again when it has received a Subscription from a user that had
previously rejected its subscription. This is just one behavior example.
In this way the moment of reattempting the Subscription is actually
determined by an input of a human, which was probably also desired by
the RFC.
Regards,
Anca
On 06/26/2012 01:22 PM, Min Wang wrote:
hi Anca
thanks a lot for the quick response.
As you see from the RFC3265, deactivated means the client will
try to re-subscribe immediately, which seems to be not good neither.
The ideal behavior could: stop the client to re-subscribe if
it is
not allowed ( this could be done by reason=rejeceted), then make the
client to re-subscribe once if it is allowed again, but how to achieve
this step? Is there a RFC/protocol way to do it.
I have re-posted the issue to the sim-implementors :
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2012-June/028585.h…
As for the code change, could you please wait until there is a
further discussion on it?
thanks again.
min
On 06/26/2012 12:02 PM, Anca Vamanu wrote:
> Hi Min,
>
>
> I also consider the "terminated" reason is not the best choice in this
> case.
> I think reason "deactivated" is more appropriate. Since you seem to
> have researched about this also, do you agree? I can do this change in
> the code.
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Anca
>
>
> On 06/26/2012 01:07 AM, Min Wang wrote:
>> HI
>>
>> I did more analysis:
>>
>> as before, the configure is:
>>
>> 101 --- kamailio proxy/xcap server -- 102
>>
>> 101/102 : jitsi night build, xcap/SIMPLE mode
>> kamailio is 3.3
>> 101 has 102 on its contacts list, and 102 has 101 on its
>> contacts
>> list as well
>>
>> now 101 remove 102 from its contact, proxy will send out NOTIFY to
>> 102
>>
>> (1) if reason=terminated returned in NOTIFY ( this is the current
>> kamaili behavior)
>>
>> According to RFC 3265:
>> If no reason code or an unknown reason code is present, the
>> client MAY attempt to re-
>> subscribe at any time (unless a "retry-after" parameter is
>> present,
>> in which case the client SHOULD NOT attempt re-subscription
>> until
>> after the number of seconds specified by the "retry-after"
>> parameter).
>>
>>
>> Jitsi 1.1 nightly will keep on re-subscribe ( at some random
>> time ).
>>
>> And kamailio/proxy will keep on reject the subscribe with:
>> NOTIFY,
>> with reason=terminated.
>>
>> It seems to waste some resources (bandwidth/db/cpu etc).
>> Image if
>> there are a lot of deleted contacts :(.
>>
>>
>> (2) if reason=rejected returned in NOTIFY
>>
>> according to the same RFC:
>>
>> rejected: The subscription has been terminated due to change in
>> authorization policy. Clients SHOULD NOT attempt to
>> re-subscribe.
>> The "retry-after" parameter has no semantics for
"rejected".
>>
>>
>> So the client will not send any re-subscribe, which is good,
>> will
>> save some resources.
>>
>> But there is an issue:
>>
>> when 101 add 102 again, after 101 puting pres-rules (allow
>> 102) to
>> the xcap server ,
>>
>> there will be two cases:
>>
>> (2.a). If that subscription expired, or deleted by the kamailio
>> timer ( I hope I understand the code correctly)
>>
>> of course kamailio will not send any NOTIFY (to 102).
>>
>> (2.b). if that subscription do still exist in
>> active_watcher, that
>> subscriptions will be marked as active
>>
>> kamailio will send the NOTIFY to 102 indicating 101's
>> status
>>
>> But from 102 point of view: since the subscription
>> has been
>> terminated , this notify will be rejected as 481 non-exist.
>>
>>
>> In neither case, can 102 see 101's status ( since 102 to 101's
>> subscription has been rejected/terminated from 102 point of view)
>>
>>
>> So from pure end-user point of view, that is not the expected
>> behavior.
>> User expect the 102 can see 101's status since 101 now allow 102
>> again and 102 did not remove 101 from his contact list
>>
>>
>> The question is: how can we do it right?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> min
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/25/2012 05:43 PM, Min Wang wrote:
>>> HI
>>>
>>> when I removed 102 from 101's contact list (using jitsi nightly 1.1
>>> build), kamailio 3.3 send out NOTIFY to 102 like this:
>>>
>>>
>>> NOTIFY
>>> sip:102@192.168.122.147:5060;transport=udp;registering_acc=192_168_122_32
>>>
>>>
>>> SIP/2.0.
>>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.122.32;branch=z9hG4bK1bfb.afbf0a85.0.
>>> To: sip:102@192.168.122.32;tag=f6a40771.
>>> From:
>>> sip:101@192.168.122.32;tag=a6a1c5f60faecf035a1ae5b6e96e979a-5724.
>>> CSeq: 4 NOTIFY.
>>> Call-ID: c7c52dd058268596ec84dd3c645a2f17(a)0.0.0.0.
>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>> User-Agent: kamailio (3.3.0-rc0 (x86_64/linux)).
>>> Max-Forwards: 70.
>>> Event: presence.
>>> Contact:<sip:192.168.122.32:5060;transport=udp>.
>>> Subscription-State: terminated;reason=terminated.<-----------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note the reason code is:terminated.
>>>
>>>
>>> From rfc3265, The defined reason codes are: deactivated/
>>> probation/rejected/ timeout/giveup/noresource
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the reason to send: reason=terminated instead one of the
>>> well-defined reason codes?
>>>
>>>
>>> There was a discussion regarding at:
>>>
>>>
http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=133
>>> <http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=133>
>>>
>>>
>>> but I did not see the explaination of reason=terminated.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> min
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
>>> list
>>> sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
>>>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>> _______________________________________________
>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
>> list
>> sr-users(a)lists.sip-router.org
>>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>>
>>