[SIPForum-techwg] Quetion about how registration mode works

[Bharrat, Shaun]

> > If it's NOT the case - that REGISTER now does something that's 
> > different at the SIP level in Registration mode - we 
> probably need to 
> > talk...
> [JRE] It seems that the registration protocol itself is 
> unchanged, but it has a number of side-effects, first in 
> terms of the AoRs that are implictly registered and second in 
> terms of the contents (Request-URI /
> Route) of inbound requests subsequent to registration.

- The side effect in terms of the implicit registered AoRs is different.
- The change in the contents (RURI/Route) would be part of 3327 handling
and not "out of the air"

Cheers,
Shaun

> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org 
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Elwell, John
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: Spencer Dawkins; Francois Audet; Cullen JENNINGS; 
> techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Quetion about how registration 
> mode works
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> > [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
> > Sent: 12 February 2009 17:11
> > To: Francois Audet; Cullen JENNINGS; techwg at sipforum.org
> > Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Quetion about how registration mode 
> > works
> > 
> > I'm trying to trace what we've said about 
> "psuedo-registration", and I 
> > think the trail started with Francois, replying to Cullen:
> > 
> > >> Later when a call comes to ATT that is for cullen at fhs.com,
> > it forwards
> > >> the INVITE to the PBX with a RURI of 1.2.3.4, and a 
> route header of 
> > >> cullen at fhs.com . Did I get this right?  Could you show 
> me a bit of 
> > >> example of what the RURI, To, From, and Route headers 
> look like in 
> > >> the Register and both inbound and outbound INVTEs?
> > >
> > > No: this is wrong.
> > >
> > > The Request-URI would be set to
> > sip:+1-403-555-1212;user=phone (and so
> > > will
> > > the To). From would be the Calling Line ID of the orginator
> > (or SIP URI).
> > >
> > > This is why I'm insisting we call it pseudo-Registration. 
> > It is not a
> > > normal
> > > registration where we expect the Request-URI to be 
> replaced by the 
> > > Contact.
> > 
> > If I'm confused, I apologize, but my understanding was that the 
> > registration was a normal REGISTER exchange that also had 
> side effects 
> > at the SP-PBX ("and register a whole bunch of URIs that were 
> > configured at the SP-SSE") that were not visible to the SIP-PBX.
> > 
> > Is this the case?
> > 
> > If it is, I'm sympathetic to the notion that we need a 
> different term 
> > to describe this (I know ETSI uses "Subscription", which is 
> ambiguous 
> > with a DIFFERENT SIP method :-), but I'm thinking that 
> > "pseudo-registration" may not be an improvement - and we can talk 
> > about what a better term might be.
> > 
> > If it's NOT the case - that REGISTER now does something that's 
> > different at the SIP level in Registration mode - we 
> probably need to 
> > talk...
> [JRE] It seems that the registration protocol itself is 
> unchanged, but it has a number of side-effects, first in 
> terms of the AoRs that are implictly registered and second in 
> terms of the contents (Request-URI /
> Route) of inbound requests subsequent to registration.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Spencer
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > techwg mailing list
> > Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> > Unsubscribe or edit options at:  
> > http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>