20 Apr
2005
20 Apr
'05
8 a.m.
I received questions for more detailed explanation, so here it is:
branch value serves as transaction id, which (among others) differentiates
retransmission of the same request from new requests. From
RFC3261's standpoint, ACK for a 200 (as opposed to a [3-6]xx ACK)
is a separate transaction, i.e., a different branch value is
adequate.
In case people do keep asking: it is really so, and receivers
MUST be able to deal with ACK branch different from branch
in INVITE. Let's think of a proxy that does not record-route
and introduced branch 1234 to "its" Via. ACK coming later
directly to UAS includes UAC's branch which is different from
proxy's branch. It may or may not be the same as UAC's INVITE
branch but it is different from what UAS sees.
-jiri
At 12:44 AM 4/20/2005, Darryl H. Thomas wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri@iptel.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:23 PM
To: Darryl H. Thomas; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Bug # 2925
The bug report is invalid, ignore it. branch=0 in ACK to a 200
is perfectly valid according to RFC3261. Your termination provider
must be using a buggy devices.
-jiri
At 07:04 PM 4/19/2005, Darryl H. Thomas wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
Hello everyone,
I was wondering whether anyone knew what was going on with the
following
80
For those not wanting to follow the links, this is a bug submitted by
someone back in December wherein ser puts 'branch=0' in the Via header
it
creates for an ACK to a 200 OK Invite response.
I haven't seen any activity related to this, and it's affecting
interoperability with one of our termination providers.
0.9.0 users, have you seen the same problem??
Cheers,
Darryl
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ 
20 Apr
20 Apr
8:45 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Bug # 2925
Jiri Kuthan writes:
In case people do keep asking: it is really so, and
receivers
MUST be able to deal with ACK branch different from branch
in INVITE.
that is correct.
>The bug report is invalid, ignore it. branch=0 in
ACK to a 200
>is perfectly valid according to RFC3261.
but i'm not sure that branch=0 would be valid according to rfc3261,
which says (section 8.1.1):
The branch parameter value MUST be unique across space and time for all
requests sent by the UA.
0 thus hardly qualifies. also
The branch ID inserted by an element compliant with this specification
MUST always begin with the characters z9hG4bK.
-- juha
7:04 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Bug # 2925
At 08:45 AM 4/20/2005, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Jiri Kuthan writes:
Actually you are right syntactically. I don't think there is a point
semantically -- branch id is used to provide uniqueiness to
a) identify request retransmission (not applicable to ACK)
and
b) match replies to requests (not applicable to ACK either).
-jiri
In case people do keep asking: it is really so,
and receivers
MUST be able to deal with ACK branch different from branch
in INVITE.
that is correct.
>The bug report is invalid, ignore it.
branch=0 in ACK to a 200
>is perfectly valid according to RFC3261.
but i'm not sure that branch=0 would be valid according to rfc3261,
which says (section 8.1.1):
The branch parameter value MUST be unique across space and time for all
requests sent by the UA.
0 thus hardly qualifies. also
The branch ID inserted by an element compliant with this specification
MUST always begin with the characters z9hG4bK. 
8:50 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] problem with special user for SER running
Hi,
i install SER 0.8.14 on my SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9.
it works. but i dont like to run SER under root-account, so
i add a new system user "ser", i can start SER, but serctl have problems
with access to fifo. After "serctl moni" i see in /var/log/messages
following:
Apr 20 09:31:57 xxx /sbin/ser[8669]: ERROR: open_reply_pipe: open
error (/tmp/ser_receiver_8732): Permission denied
Apr 20 09:31:57 xxx /sbin/ser[8669]: ERROR: fifo_reply: no reply pipe
/tmp/ser_receiver_8732
the user "ser" is member of group "users".
how can i allow the user "ser" to create and access the fifos?
many thanks,
Grigory Fishilevich
22 Apr
22 Apr
8:49 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] problem with special user for SER running
See post "ser_fifo permissions".
use sock_mode=0666 in cfg
Regards
Cameron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grigory Fishilevich" <g.fishilevich(a)gmail.com>
To: <serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 6:50 PM
Subject: [Serusers] problem with special user for SER running
Hi,
i install SER 0.8.14 on my SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9.
it works. but i dont like to run SER under root-account, so
i add a new system user "ser", i can start SER, but serctl have problems
with access to fifo. After "serctl moni" i see in /var/log/messages
following:
Apr 20 09:31:57 xxx /sbin/ser[8669]: ERROR: open_reply_pipe: open
error (/tmp/ser_receiver_8732): Permission denied
Apr 20 09:31:57 xxx /sbin/ser[8669]: ERROR: fifo_reply: no reply pipe
/tmp/ser_receiver_8732
the user "ser" is member of group "users".
how can i allow the user "ser" to create and access the fifos?
many thanks,
Grigory Fishilevich
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
6966
days inactive
6968
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Cameron Beattie -
Grigory Fishilevich -
Jiri Kuthan -
Juha Heinanen