[sip-comm-dev] Alert INVITE request at SIP Communicator after REGISTRATION Fails.


#1

Hello All,
we have tested the abnormal call flow with SIP Communicator, SIP communicator send a REGISTER request and pseudo server send a 200 OK REGISTER response with missing from header. The SIP Communicator drops the 200 OK REGISTER response. and the INVITE sent from Pseudo server is alerted at the SIP Communicator.

Is the SIP Communicator behavior correct?

Regard's
Parasuraman Kumarasami

···

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#2

Hey Parasuraman,

I didn't quite understand which part is bothering you? Is it the fact
that SIP Communicator rings while it isn't registered? If yes, then why
is this a problem? The whole point of registering somewhere is to allow
others to find us. If they managed to find us despite a failure in our
registration procedure, then I guess we should be happy about it, right?
Did you have something else in mind?

Cheers
Emil

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

···

Hello All,
we have tested the abnormal call flow with SIP Communicator, SIP
communicator send a REGISTER request and pseudo server send a 200 OK
REGISTER response with missing from header. The SIP Communicator drops
the 200 OK REGISTER response. and the INVITE sent from Pseudo server is
alerted at the SIP Communicator.

Is the SIP Communicator behavior correct?

Regard's
Parasuraman Kumarasami

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#3

Hello Emil Ivor,

Yes, its okay.

consider this scenario

···

****************
There is a two users namely User A and User B.
User A is pseudo server.
User B is SIP Communicator.
User B send's the REGISTER request and User A send malformed 200 OK REGISTER response (Missing From Header).
User B is drops the 200 OK REGISTER response since the behavior is correct as per RFC.
User A sends well formed INVITE request to User B(not registered) and there is an alert at the User B end ie. incoming call from User A (its confusing the user, alerting of the incoming call after REGISTRATION failure).
User B does not send any response to the INVITE request (unable to accept the INVITE request) - since behavior is correct.
User B retransmits the REGISTER request behavior is correct as per RFC. its confusing that the alerting of the incoming call after registration failure.

FYI --

From your explanation, i understood that even after REGISTRATION fails the UAC is able to receive INVITE request.This is somewhat violating the RFC definition.No bindings will be created, since the REGISTRATION fails.

Regard's
Parasuraman.

Emil Ivov wrote:

Hey Parasuraman,

I didn't quite understand which part is bothering you? Is it the fact
that SIP Communicator rings while it isn't registered? If yes, then why
is this a problem? The whole point of registering somewhere is to allow
others to find us. If they managed to find us despite a failure in our
registration procedure, then I guess we should be happy about it, right?
Did you have something else in mind?

Cheers
Emil

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:
  

Hello All,
we have tested the abnormal call flow with SIP Communicator, SIP communicator send a REGISTER request and pseudo server send a 200 OK REGISTER response with missing from header. The SIP Communicator drops the 200 OK REGISTER response. and the INVITE sent from Pseudo server is alerted at the SIP Communicator.

Is the SIP Communicator behavior correct?

Regard's
Parasuraman Kumarasami

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#4

Hey Parasuraman,

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello Emil Ivor,

Yes, its okay.

consider this scenario
[snip]

Yup, that's what I thought you meant in your first mail.

From your explanation, i understood that even after REGISTRATION fails
the UAC is able to receive INVITE request.This is somewhat violating the
RFC definition.No bindings will be created, since the REGISTRATION fails.

Indeed that's completely true for the registrar.

As for the client I believe this is mostly a matter of user expectations
and usability. Personally, I'd be happy to take calls from people that
no my IP address even if my SIP server is down. I do agree though that
it might be confusing for many users so I am not really opposing a
change in this direction.

Would love to hear what others think.

Cheers
Emil

···

Regard's
Parasuraman.

Emil Ivov wrote:

Hey Parasuraman,

I didn't quite understand which part is bothering you? Is it the fact
that SIP Communicator rings while it isn't registered? If yes, then why
is this a problem? The whole point of registering somewhere is to allow
others to find us. If they managed to find us despite a failure in our
registration procedure, then I guess we should be happy about it, right?
Did you have something else in mind?

Cheers
Emil

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:
  

Hello All,
we have tested the abnormal call flow with SIP Communicator, SIP
communicator send a REGISTER request and pseudo server send a 200 OK
REGISTER response with missing from header. The SIP Communicator drops
the 200 OK REGISTER response. and the INVITE sent from Pseudo server is
alerted at the SIP Communicator.

Is the SIP Communicator behavior correct?

Regard's
Parasuraman Kumarasami

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#5

Hello Emil Ivor,

Yes, I agree with you that users would like to be contacted by others if the server is down.

My concern is the callee, user who is not registered to the server cannot accept/deny the call. Also the caller is not notified about the state of the callee.

Regard's
Parasuraman

Emil Ivov wrote:

···

Hey Parasuraman,

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:
  

Hello Emil Ivor,

Yes, its okay.

consider this scenario
[snip]
    
Yup, that's what I thought you meant in your first mail.

From your explanation, i understood that even after REGISTRATION fails
the UAC is able to receive INVITE request.This is somewhat violating the
RFC definition.No bindings will be created, since the REGISTRATION fails.
    
Indeed that's completely true for the registrar.

As for the client I believe this is mostly a matter of user expectations
and usability. Personally, I'd be happy to take calls from people that
no my IP address even if my SIP server is down. I do agree though that
it might be confusing for many users so I am not really opposing a
change in this direction.

Would love to hear what others think.

Cheers
Emil

Regard's
Parasuraman.

Emil Ivov wrote:
    

Hey Parasuraman,

I didn't quite understand which part is bothering you? Is it the fact
that SIP Communicator rings while it isn't registered? If yes, then why
is this a problem? The whole point of registering somewhere is to allow
others to find us. If they managed to find us despite a failure in our
registration procedure, then I guess we should be happy about it, right?
Did you have something else in mind?

Cheers
Emil

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:
  

Hello All,
we have tested the abnormal call flow with SIP Communicator, SIP communicator send a REGISTER request and pseudo server send a 200 OK REGISTER response with missing from header. The SIP Communicator drops the 200 OK REGISTER response. and the INVITE sent from Pseudo server is alerted at the SIP Communicator.

Is the SIP Communicator behavior correct?

Regard's
Parasuraman Kumarasami

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#6

Hey Parasuraman,

I am still not sure I follow.

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

My concern is the callee, user who is not registered to the server
cannot accept/deny the call.

Well it seems to me that in the case you describe there's no reason why
the callee wouldn't be able to accept deny the call. Is there an error
when you try to answer?

Also the caller is not notified about
the state of the callee.

Again, I am afraid I don't quite understand. Do you mean the presence
state?

It would probably help if you could describe the behaviour that you
would expect to see in such a situation.

Cheers
Emil

···

Regard's Parasuraman

Emil Ivov wrote:

Hey Parasuraman,

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello Emil Ivor,

Yes, its okay.

consider this scenario [snip]

Yup, that's what I thought you meant in your first mail.

From your explanation, i understood that even after REGISTRATION
fails the UAC is able to receive INVITE request.This is somewhat
violating the RFC definition.No bindings will be created, since
the REGISTRATION fails.

Indeed that's completely true for the registrar.

As for the client I believe this is mostly a matter of user
expectations and usability. Personally, I'd be happy to take calls
from people that no my IP address even if my SIP server is down. I
do agree though that it might be confusing for many users so I am
not really opposing a change in this direction.

Would love to hear what others think.

Cheers Emil

Regard's Parasuraman.

Emil Ivov wrote:

Hey Parasuraman,

I didn't quite understand which part is bothering you? Is it
the fact that SIP Communicator rings while it isn't registered?
If yes, then why is this a problem? The whole point of
registering somewhere is to allow others to find us. If they
managed to find us despite a failure in our registration
procedure, then I guess we should be happy about it, right? Did
you have something else in mind?

Cheers Emil

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello All, we have tested the abnormal call flow with SIP
Communicator, SIP communicator send a REGISTER request and
pseudo server send a 200 OK REGISTER response with missing
from header. The SIP Communicator drops the 200 OK REGISTER
response. and the INVITE sent from Pseudo server is alerted
at the SIP Communicator.

Is the SIP Communicator behavior correct?

Regard's Parasuraman Kumarasami

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#7

Ivov, not Ivor!!!

···

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Parasuraman Kumarasami <parasuraman.kumarasami@mobax.com> wrote:

Hello Emil Ivor,

Yes, I agree with you that users would like to be contacted by others if the
server is down.

My concern is the callee, user who is not registered to the server cannot
accept/deny the call. Also the caller is not notified about the state of the
callee.

Regard's
Parasuraman

Emil Ivov wrote:

Hey Parasuraman,

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello Emil Ivor,

Yes, its okay.

consider this scenario
[snip]

Yup, that's what I thought you meant in your first mail.

From your explanation, i understood that even after REGISTRATION fails
the UAC is able to receive INVITE request.This is somewhat violating the
RFC definition.No bindings will be created, since the REGISTRATION fails.

Indeed that's completely true for the registrar.

As for the client I believe this is mostly a matter of user expectations
and usability. Personally, I'd be happy to take calls from people that
no my IP address even if my SIP server is down. I do agree though that
it might be confusing for many users so I am not really opposing a
change in this direction.

Would love to hear what others think.

Cheers
Emil

Regard's
Parasuraman.

Emil Ivov wrote:

Hey Parasuraman,

I didn't quite understand which part is bothering you? Is it the fact
that SIP Communicator rings while it isn't registered? If yes, then why
is this a problem? The whole point of registering somewhere is to allow
others to find us. If they managed to find us despite a failure in our
registration procedure, then I guess we should be happy about it, right?
Did you have something else in mind?

Cheers
Emil

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello All,
we have tested the abnormal call flow with SIP Communicator, SIP
communicator send a REGISTER request and pseudo server send a 200 OK
REGISTER response with missing from header. The SIP Communicator drops the
200 OK REGISTER response. and the INVITE sent from Pseudo server is alerted
at the SIP Communicator.

Is the SIP Communicator behavior correct?

Regard's
Parasuraman Kumarasami

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#8

Hello Emil Ivov,

Thanks for your quick responses.

I expect the INVITE should not reach the users who are not registered with the server.

And the caller should be intimated that the User is not found (404).

Regard's
Parasuraman.

Emil Ivov wrote:

···

Hey Parasuraman,

I am still not sure I follow.

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:
  

My concern is the callee, user who is not registered to the server
cannot accept/deny the call.
    
Well it seems to me that in the case you describe there's no reason why
the callee wouldn't be able to accept deny the call. Is there an error
when you try to answer?

Also the caller is not notified about
the state of the callee.
    
Again, I am afraid I don't quite understand. Do you mean the presence
state?

It would probably help if you could describe the behaviour that you
would expect to see in such a situation.

Cheers
Emil

Regard's Parasuraman

Emil Ivov wrote:
    

Hey Parasuraman,

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello Emil Ivor,

Yes, its okay.

consider this scenario [snip]

Yup, that's what I thought you meant in your first mail.

From your explanation, i understood that even after REGISTRATION
fails the UAC is able to receive INVITE request.This is somewhat
violating the RFC definition.No bindings will be created, since
the REGISTRATION fails.

Indeed that's completely true for the registrar.

As for the client I believe this is mostly a matter of user
expectations and usability. Personally, I'd be happy to take calls
from people that no my IP address even if my SIP server is down. I
do agree though that it might be confusing for many users so I am
not really opposing a change in this direction.

Would love to hear what others think.

Cheers Emil

Regard's Parasuraman.

Emil Ivov wrote:

Hey Parasuraman,

I didn't quite understand which part is bothering you? Is it
the fact that SIP Communicator rings while it isn't registered?
If yes, then why is this a problem? The whole point of
registering somewhere is to allow others to find us. If they
managed to find us despite a failure in our registration
procedure, then I guess we should be happy about it, right? Did
you have something else in mind?

Cheers Emil

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello All, we have tested the abnormal call flow with SIP
Communicator, SIP communicator send a REGISTER request and
pseudo server send a 200 OK REGISTER response with missing
from header. The SIP Communicator drops the 200 OK REGISTER
response. and the INVITE sent from Pseudo server is alerted
at the SIP Communicator.

Is the SIP Communicator behavior correct?

Regard's Parasuraman Kumarasami

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net


#9

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello Emil Ivov,

Just Emil would be fine :slight_smile:

Thanks for your quick responses.

You are welcome!

I expect the INVITE should not reach the users who are not registered with the server.

And the caller should be intimated that the User is not found (404).

OK I understand. Then I guess that my point is:

Why should we prevent the users from establishing a call when there's no
technical reason that prevents us from connecting them?

Regards
Emil

···

Regard's
Parasuraman.

Emil Ivov wrote:

Hey Parasuraman,

I am still not sure I follow.

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:
  

My concern is the callee, user who is not registered to the server
cannot accept/deny the call.
    

Well it seems to me that in the case you describe there's no reason why
the callee wouldn't be able to accept deny the call. Is there an error
when you try to answer?

Also the caller is not notified about
the state of the callee.
    

Again, I am afraid I don't quite understand. Do you mean the presence
state?

It would probably help if you could describe the behaviour that you
would expect to see in such a situation.

Cheers
Emil

Regard's Parasuraman

Emil Ivov wrote:
    

Hey Parasuraman,

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello Emil Ivor,

Yes, its okay.

consider this scenario [snip]

Yup, that's what I thought you meant in your first mail.

From your explanation, i understood that even after REGISTRATION
fails the UAC is able to receive INVITE request.This is somewhat
violating the RFC definition.No bindings will be created, since
the REGISTRATION fails.

Indeed that's completely true for the registrar.

As for the client I believe this is mostly a matter of user
expectations and usability. Personally, I'd be happy to take calls
from people that no my IP address even if my SIP server is down. I
do agree though that it might be confusing for many users so I am
not really opposing a change in this direction.

Would love to hear what others think.

Cheers Emil

Regard's Parasuraman.

Emil Ivov wrote:

Hey Parasuraman,

I didn't quite understand which part is bothering you? Is it
the fact that SIP Communicator rings while it isn't registered?
If yes, then why is this a problem? The whole point of
registering somewhere is to allow others to find us. If they
managed to find us despite a failure in our registration
procedure, then I guess we should be happy about it, right? Did
you have something else in mind?

Cheers Emil

Parasuraman Kumarasami wrote:

Hello All, we have tested the abnormal call flow with SIP
Communicator, SIP communicator send a REGISTER request and
pseudo server send a 200 OK REGISTER response with missing
from header. The SIP Communicator drops the 200 OK REGISTER
response. and the INVITE sent from Pseudo server is alerted
at the SIP Communicator.

Is the SIP Communicator behavior correct?

Regard's Parasuraman Kumarasami

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@sip-communicator.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@sip-communicator.dev.java.net