Hi Anca:
Thanks again!
please see my comment inline:
> The "terminated" reason that is sent now, I think it's a bug, it was
probably mistaken with the Subscription-Status.
Yes, I guess so.
Yah it could be. But from pure end user point of view, it is some kind of werid. B already allowed A to see its status. Why should B disable A to see its status just because of A's behavior ( disable B to its status).Let's say user A deletes user B from its contact list. Let's say user B will receive a Notify with reason 'rejected'. In this moment user B could also delete the authorization rule for user A.
A, B should be independent of its contact list and pres-rules.
e.g: B is kind of generous people, do not mind A's behavior.
From my test with (jitsi with reason=rejected), jitsi B will
not update any of its pres-rules/resource-list etc.
User B will be allowed again to see the presence of user A when user A will add B again in its contact list. This is the moment when you wanted to announce user B to subscribe again. This is actually be achieved, as user B will receive a Notification for presence.winfo that the user A requests authorization. And in this case probably most of the clients ask if you want to add that user in your contact list also. And this is the moment when user B will subscribe again to user A.
Yah, you are right. that could be the moment. I remembered from my trace I do see the Kamailio send out presence.winfo ( active) to B ( in this case B did not remove this pres-rules , otherwise the presence.winfo will be pending), unfornately jitsi B did nothing for this case of active presence.winfo.
From strict RFC point of view, sending presence.winfo does not mean B need to re-subscribe to A, this is our interpretation to solve this issue. So we have to convince the client people to do this way. will this behavior break any other things?
I found similar call flow on Oracle site, it is:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17667_01/doc.50/e17669/cpt_concepts.htm#
in the Changing Presence Rules section:5. Because Alice's updated policy does not authorize Bob as a watcher, the presence server sends a NOTIFY request to Bob's client, notifying him that his subscription is terminated. In the NOTIFY request, the Subscription-State header specifies terminated and the reason is set to probation. This ends Bob's subscription with the presence server and also ends the underlying SIP dialog. Bob's client responds with a 200 OK message.
It uses **probation** as the reason for updated xcap policy. Not sure if it is OMA standard or not or just Oracle interpretation.
kind regards. min
There can be some other way to that the client knows to reSubscribe again when it has received a Subscription from a user that had previously rejected its subscription. This is just one behavior example.In this way the moment of reattempting the Subscription is actually determined by an input of a human, which was probably also desired by the RFC.Regards, Anca On 06/26/2012 01:22 PM, Min Wang wrote:hi Anca thanks a lot for the quick response. As you see from the RFC3265, deactivated means the client will try to re-subscribe immediately, which seems to be not good neither.The ideal behavior could: stop the client to re-subscribe if it isnot allowed ( this could be done by reason=rejeceted), then make the client to re-subscribe once if it is allowed again, but how to achieve this step? Is there a RFC/protocol way to do it. I have re-posted the issue to the sim-implementors :https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2012-June/028585.htmlAs for the code change, could you please wait until there is a further discussion on it? thanks again. min On 06/26/2012 12:02 PM, Anca Vamanu wrote:Hi Min, I also consider the "terminated" reason is not the best choice in this case. I think reason "deactivated" is more appropriate. Since you seem to have researched about this also, do you agree? I can do this change in the code. Thanks and regards, Anca On 06/26/2012 01:07 AM, Min Wang wrote:HI I did more analysis: as before, the configure is: 101 --- kamailio proxy/xcap server -- 102 101/102 : jitsi night build, xcap/SIMPLE mode kamailio is 3.3 101 has 102 on its contacts list, and 102 has 101 on its contacts list as wellnow 101 remove 102 from its contact, proxy will send out NOTIFY to 102(1) if reason=terminated returned in NOTIFY ( this is the current kamaili behavior) According to RFC 3265: If no reason code or an unknown reason code is present, the client MAY attempt to re-subscribe at any time (unless a "retry-after" parameter is present, in which case the client SHOULD NOT attempt re-subscription untilafter the number of seconds specified by the "retry-after" parameter). Jitsi 1.1 nightly will keep on re-subscribe ( at some random time ).And kamailio/proxy will keep on reject the subscribe with: NOTIFY,with reason=terminated.It seems to waste some resources (bandwidth/db/cpu etc). Image ifthere are a lot of deleted contacts :(. (2) if reason=rejected returned in NOTIFY according to the same RFC: rejected: The subscription has been terminated due to change in authorization policy. Clients SHOULD NOT attempt to re-subscribe. The "retry-after" parameter has no semantics for "rejected".So the client will not send any re-subscribe, which is good, willsave some resources. But there is an issue: when 101 add 102 again, after 101 puting pres-rules (allow 102) to the xcap server , there will be two cases: (2.a). If that subscription expired, or deleted by the kamailio timer ( I hope I understand the code correctly) of course kamailio will not send any NOTIFY (to 102).(2.b). if that subscription do still exist in active_watcher, thatsubscriptions will be marked as active kamailio will send the NOTIFY to 102 indicating 101's statusBut from 102 point of view: since the subscription has beenterminated , this notify will be rejected as 481 non-exist. In neither case, can 102 see 101's status ( since 102 to 101's subscription has been rejected/terminated from 102 point of view) So from pure end-user point of view, that is not the expected behavior. User expect the 102 can see 101's status since 101 now allow 102 again and 102 did not remove 101 from his contact list The question is: how can we do it right? Thanks. min On 06/25/2012 05:43 PM, Min Wang wrote:HI when I removed 102 from 101's contact list (using jitsi nightly 1.1 build), kamailio 3.3 send out NOTIFY to 102 like this: NOTIFYsip:102@192.168.122.147:5060;transport=udp;registering_acc=192_168_122_32SIP/2.0. Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.122.32;branch=z9hG4bK1bfb.afbf0a85.0. To: sip:102@192.168.122.32;tag=f6a40771.From: sip:101@192.168.122.32;tag=a6a1c5f60faecf035a1ae5b6e96e979a-5724.CSeq: 4 NOTIFY. Call-ID: c7c52dd058268596ec84dd3c645a2f17@0.0.0.0. Content-Length: 0. User-Agent: kamailio (3.3.0-rc0 (x86_64/linux)). Max-Forwards: 70. Event: presence. Contact:<sip:192.168.122.32:5060;transport=udp>. Subscription-State: terminated;reason=terminated.<----------------- Note the reason code is:terminated. From rfc3265, The defined reason codes are: deactivated/ probation/rejected/ timeout/giveup/noresource What is the reason to send: reason=terminated instead one of the well-defined reason codes? There was a discussion regarding at: http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=133 <http://sip-router.org/tracker/index.php?do=details&task_id=133> but I did not see the explaination of reason=terminated. Thanks min _______________________________________________SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing listsr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users_______________________________________________SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing listsr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________ SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
