Thank you for your answer Benny. That sounds quite good for me ! What about you Alan ? Best Regards, Electrocut Benny Prijono wrote: > Gents, > > sorry for not responding sooner. So bottom line is, if server doesn't > follow the protocol, then there's no exact way to make registration > right. I wonder again if it's really hopeless to ask them to fix it (I > kind of know the answer though :) ). > > Alan, as you said your patch looks a bit rough (I tend to see it as > both funny and desperate at the same time). Can we not do like this, > which is simpler (this would only happen if the strict checking is > disabled): > > if we're registering: > if the answer is 200/OK: > if matched Contact is found: > get expiration from Contact > else if there is at least one Contact > get the lowest expires from all Contacts > else if Expires is found: > get expiration from Expires header > else > get expiration from the request > else if the answer is 3xx-6xx: > the registration has failed > > > if we're unregistering: > if the answer is 200/OK: > the unregistration has been successful > else > it doesn't matter, we're unregistering no matter > > What do you think? > > Cheers > Benny > > > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Tanguy Floc'h <electrocut at gmail.com> wrote: > >> You are right Alan, I didn't see the included file (in fact, you last post >> on the mailing list haven't reached my mailbox, I don't know why). >> >> I'll look at your sip_reg.c remplacement more closely. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Tanguy Floc'h <electrocut at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sorry for the bad ascii table :( >>> >>> the same in an image : >>> >> http://www.monsterup.com/image.php?url=upload/1210003361.jpg >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Tanguy Floc'h <electrocut at gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >> >>>> I agree with you Alan, I had the same problem a few minutes ago : >>>> with "pjsip_cfg()->regc.check_contact" disabled, it will fail anyway >>>> >> with a "unregister success", if more than once user have registered to the >> account. (if we assume 'Contact: header' is missing) >> >>>> Another problem with the fix you proposed : >>>> >>>> >>>> if (expiration == NOEXP) >>>> expiration = -1; >>>> else if (expiration == 0 && contact_cnt > 0 && contact[0]->expires > 0) >>>> expiration = contact[0]->expires; >>>> >>>> >>>> is that you don't know if 'contact[0]->expires' is your expire value ... >>>> >> or if it is 'contact[1]->expires' >> >>>> If 'contact[0]->expires' is taken as the "good expire value", only if >>>> >> the "Contact header recognation" (like when "check_contact" is enabled) has >> failed ... if could solve a part of the problem, but not all. >> >>>> If my assumption is right (I haven't tested it) finally, it should be : >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ >> >>>> | only | only | >>>> >> | >> >>>> | No Expire header | bad Contact Info | No >>>> >> Expire header + Wrong Contact Info | >> >> ------------------|------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------| >> >>>> 1st fix | | | >>>> >> | >> >>>> (contact_cnt = 0) | ok if register<2 | ok | >>>> >> ok if register<2 | >> >>>> | | | >>>> >> | >> >> ------------------+------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ >> >>>> 2nd fix | ok | | >>>> >> ok | >> >>>> (contact_cnt > 0) | but multi-unreg | ok | >>>> >> but multi-unreg problem | >> >>>> | problem | | >>>> >> | >> >> ------------------+------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ >> >>>> 2nd fix + | | | >>>> >> | >> >>>> + the idea above | | | >>>> >> ok | >> >>>> (test contact | ok | ok | >>>> >> but multi-unreg problem | | >> >>>> header recogn. 1st| | | >>>> >> | >> >> ------------------+------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+ >> >>>> I hope we will managed to find the best solution for this issue :) >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Electrocut >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Benny Prijono <bennylp at pjsip.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Alan, >>>>> >>>>> First of all, I think this issue has come up several times on this >>>>> list, so I've just added this entry in the FAQ to explain the >>>>> rationale why PJSIP behaves this way, and also few solutions to cope >>>>> with it: http://trac.pjsip.org/repos/wiki/FAQ#regc >>>>> >>>>> I do like your solution. And while this is server problem (regardless >>>>> of how popular it is; if it's broken, then it needs to be fixed, IMO), >>>>> in the SVN trunk we already have couple of settings to deal with this, >>>>> so if we want to handle this, why not go all the way. So I've just >>>>> added the trick (to get the expiration value from the single Contact, >>>>> if Expires header is not present) in the latest SVN version. Thanks >>>>> for the suggestion. >>>>> >>>>> Now enjoy the bank holiday. :) >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Benny >>>>> > > _______________________________________________ > Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org > > pjsip mailing list > pjsip at lists.pjsip.org > http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.pjsip.org/pipermail/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org/attachments/20080508/f1903082/attachment-0001.html
