[Serusers] PA error sending notifies

Tue May 16 10:31:11 CEST 2006

Hi Vaclav,

Do you still need me to send you ngrep output and ser log ?
Or else, did you find out where the problem is, from Samuel's information ?

If you can find the problem and suggest some fixes, I'd be glad to test it on my system. Please let me know...

Thanks,
ilker

-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Vaclav Kubart
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 11:13 AM
To: samuel
Cc: serusers at lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] PA error sending notifies

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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>

 <http://387555.sigclick.mailinfo.com/sigclick/010A0607/04004D07/00064D00/12212151.jpg>
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bu e-posta mesaji kisiye ozel olup, gizli bilgiler iceriyor olabilir. Eger bu e-posta mesaji size yanlislikla ulasmissa,  icerigini hic bir sekilde kullanmayiniz ve ekli dosyalari acmayiniz. Bu durumda lutfen e-posta mesajini kullaniciya hemen geri gonderiniz  ve  tum kopyalarini mesaj kutunuzdan siliniz. Bu e-posta mesaji, hic bir sekilde, herhangi bir amac icin cogaltilamaz, yayinlanamaz ve para karsiligi satilamaz.  Bu e-posta mesaji viruslere karsi anti-virus sistemleri tarafindan taranmistir. Ancak yollayici, bu e-posta mesajinin - virus koruma sistemleri ile kontrol ediliyor olsa bile - virus icermedigini garanti etmez ve meydana gelebilecek zararlardan dogacak hicbir sorumlulugu kabul etmez. 
This message is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed , and may contain confidential  information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or you receive this mail in error, you should refrain from making any use of the contents and from opening any attachment. In that case, please notify the sender immediately and return the message to the sender, then, delete and destroy all copies. This e-mail message, can not be copied, published or sold for any reason. This e-mail message has been swept by anti-virus systems for the presence of computer viruses. In doing so, however,  sender  cannot warrant that virus or other forms of data corruption may not be present and do not take any responsibility in any occurrence.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20060516/c50b735c/attachment.htm>