[Serusers] PA error sending notifies

Tue May 16 10:13:02 CEST 2006

Interesting results. Go ahead... :-)

Two rulesets are due to their separation in XCAP/authorization related
drafts, but you are right, in one file it could be better so I will
modify the parser to accept more rulesets in one file...

	Vaclav

On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:44:56AM +0200, samuel wrote:
> Inline...
> 
> 2006/5/16, Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart at iptel.org>:
> >> First of all, I have to thank you for the time you spent writing the
> >> handbook, it's really really helpfull....I wish all SER related parts
> >> had this docs..
> >
> >Thanks. :-) It is nice to hear something like that.
> >
> >>
> >> I'll try to get familiar with the code of the notifications and I'll
> >> try to find something....which I don't thing so :P. I'll also merge
> >> the two functionalities (proxy + presence) in a unique config file to
> >> see if it works.
> >> I hope I can provide more info these following days.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> 
> I've merged the configs without much success...I still have the
> problem of sending the NOTIFY but in another function:
> 
> May 15 20:39:07 localhost /usr/local/sbin/ser[19354]: ERROR: uri2sock:
> no corresponding socket for af 2
> May 15 20:39:07 localhost /usr/local/sbin/ser[19354]: ERROR:
> euac_funcs.c:219: BUG: can't send SUBSCRIBE without contact
> 
> Internally, though I thing everything goes to the same point, when
> trying to set the dest_info structure in tm/ut.h, there's some problem
> (which I have no clue yet why) when selecting the socket and I think
> that the condition that always raise the errors when sending notifies
> is:
> 
>          dst->send_sock==0
> 
> This is just the first impression I have...let's see if I can find
> something more usefull today or I'll run out of time :(
> 
> There's the "CVS log"
> 2006-04-13  added uri2dst(), simplified uri2sock() (andrei)
> So we can ask Andrei wether something has changed this last 2 months
> that can affect sending the requests from the uac-presence connection.
> 
> 
> >
> 
> >>
> >> About the missing things in the presence handbook, probably the most
> >> important is the new xcap module because in the sample config files
> >> it's missing.
> >
> >You are right, but in the "compiled" version of presence handbook
> >(published on iptel's ftp) is described current presence snapshot
> >which doesn't have xcap module.
> >
> >In the source version of the handbook (in directory doc/presence of SER
> >source tree) is the description still missing too, but will be added
> >soon. :-)
> >
> >> Another thing is that in the XCAP structure description, the im-rules
> >> directory is missing, which might lead to misunderstandings. I
> >> downloaded the structure from the iptel's ftp and inside the im-rules
> >> there were several files corresponding to presence-rules which should
> >> be either removed or updated with the im-rules namespaces and removing
> >> the whitelist.
> >
> >Thanks! I will correct it.
> >
> >By the way, "im-rules" are NOT standardized in any way - we (at iptel)
> >only needed something like that, so it is there...
> 
> I don't know wethere it's required to have two different rulesets but
> if you have required it I just haven't faced yet the use case so I
> guess it's the way to go...
> 
> >
> >        Vaclav
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Samuel.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2006/5/15, Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart at iptel.org>:
> >> >Hi,
> >> >this problem I'm trying to solve with Ilker Aktuna. I try to simulate it
> >> >on my machine and let you know. Or if you solve it, please let me know.
> >> >:-)
> >> >
> >> >Please, could you tell me, what things you were missing in presence
> >> >handbook? I'm trying to do it as useful as possible and whatever ideas
> >> >are welcome...
> >> >
> >> >        Vaclav
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 01:38:02PM +0200, samuel wrote:
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I recently had a few hours and start installing the presence staff and
> >> >> I have to say that I have it amost workign thanks to the presence
> >> >> handbook, the mailing list and, obviously, a little bit of code
> >> >> review..:P
> >> >>
> >> >> I have two SER instances, the "proxy" and the "presence server" (both
> >> >> with last CVS code) co-located in the same host and I have an issue
> >> >> when the "presence server" tries to send the NOTIFY requests. Below
> >> >> there's an attched log showing the problem (on IP a.b.c.d I've got the
> >> >> two instances):
> >> >>
> >> >> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:378: sending winfo notify
> >> >> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:383: winfo document created
> >> >> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:391: creating headers
> >> >> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:398: headers created
> >> >> 3(30682) DEBUG:tm:t_uac:
> >> >> next_hop=<sip:a.b.c.d;transport=tcp;ftag=c77b3f33;lr=on>
> >> >> 3(30682) t_uac: no socket found
> >> >> 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:402: request sent with result -7
> >> >> 3(30682) ERROR: notify.c:404: Can't send watcherinfo notification (-7)
> >> >>
> >> >> This problem appears in other places, not only in the notifications
> >> >> for winfo so probably there's somthing in the selection of the
> >> >> outgoing socket directing to the local IP.
> >> >>
> >> >> >From the proxy part I just ust t_forward_nonack for the "SIMPLE"
> >> >> messages with record route....maybe adding the port in the record
> >> >> route should help?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Samuel.
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Serusers mailing list
> >> >> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >> >> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >> >
> >