Folks,
In reviewing some H.323v4 text, I noticed
some ambiguity. Refer to section 7.2.2, it says:
A Gatekeeper may cancel the registration of an endpoint
by sending an Unregister Request (URQ) message to the endpoint. The endpoint
shall respond with an Unregister Confirmation (UCF) message. The endpoint
shall attempt to re-register with a Gatekeeper prior to initiating any calls.
This may require the endpoint to register with a new
Gatekeeper.
If the Gatekeeper sends a URQ message containing a list
of alias addresses, the endpoint shall assume that only those alias addresses
are unregistered if it chooses to accept the
request. If the Gatekeeper sends a URQ message that
does not contain any alias addresses, the endpoint shall assume that all alias
addresses, if any, are unregistered if it chooses to accept the
request.
I see two troublesome parts to this text. The text
that says "if it chooses to accept the request" is one. I don't believe
that an endpoint has a choice-- it shall always reply with UCF as stated in the
first paragraph. The last sentence of the second paragraph makes no sense
at all. If a Gatekeeper sends a URQ with no aliases, that is already
understood by all endpoints that the endpoint is no longer registered-- it
cannot simply imply that all aliases are unregistered, but not the endpoint
itself.
I would like to propose that we delete all
of this text from H.323:
if it chooses to accept the
request. If the Gatekeeper sends a URQ message that
does not contain any alias addresses, the endpoint shall assume that all alias
addresses, if any, are unregistered if it chooses to accept the
request
Any opinions? If we get agreement, I'll bring such a
proposal to the next meeting.
Paul