Description of EndpointAlias in URQ??
The "explanatory" text of the EndpointAlias element in the URQ message, contains the following sentence: "The E.164 address, if assigned, is required. " This sentence would seem to indicate that if I am unregistering, I always have to unregister the assigned E.164 address??? The sentence that follows, contradicts this: "Only values listed here are unregistered; this allows, for example, an H323_ID to be unregistered while leaving the E.164 address registered."
What is the intention of this sentence? Should I simply ignore it?
Frank
"Frank" == Frank Derks frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM writes:
Frank> The "explanatory" text of the EndpointAlias element in the Frank> URQ message, contains the following sentence: "The E.164 Frank> address, if assigned, is required. " This sentence would seem Frank> to indicate that if I am unregistering, I always have to Frank> unregister the assigned E.164 address??? The sentence that Frank> follows, contradicts this: "Only values listed here are Frank> unregistered; this allows, for example, an H323_ID to be Frank> unregistered while leaving the E.164 address registered."
Frank> What is the intention of this sentence? Should I simply Frank> ignore it?
IMO, the sentence means "The E.164 address, if assigned [dynamically by the GK during registration procedure], is required".
Regards. Fix. -- Francois-Xavier KOWALSKI __________ Telecom Engineer Hewlett-Packard Company //_ o \/ Telecom Infrastructure Division Tel:+33 (0) 4 76 14 63 27 // // /\ Fax:+33 (0) 4 76 14 16 86 mailto:fxk@tidweb.grenoble.hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/opencall/
Frank,
Frank> The "explanatory" text of the EndpointAlias element in the Frank> URQ message, contains the following sentence: "The E.164 Frank> address, if assigned, is required. " This sentence would seem Frank> to indicate that if I am unregistering, I always have to Frank> unregister the assigned E.164 address??? The sentence that Frank> follows, contradicts this: "Only values listed here are Frank> unregistered; this allows, for example, an H323_ID to be Frank> unregistered while leaving the E.164 address registered."
Frank> What is the intention of this sentence? Should I simply Frank> ignore it?
IMO, the sentence means "The E.164 address, if assigned [dynamically by the GK during registration procedure], is required".
I wonder what this is doing here at all...
Action that I consider sensible at a gatekeeper: If any aliases are mentioned in URQ, just unregister those aliases; if no aliases are mentioned, unregister the user altogether (ie all aliases).
Action I consider sensible at an endpoint: Mention all aliases that are currently registered!
This may or may not tally with the way people read the spec!!!
Regards Chris -- Dr Chris Purvis -- Development Manager ISDN Communications Ltd, The Stable Block, Ronans, Chavey Down Road Winkfield Row, Berkshire. RG42 6LY ENGLAND Phone: +44 1344 899 007 Fax: +44 1344 899 001
participants (3)
-
Chris Wayman Purvis -
Francois-Xavier Kowalski -
Frank Derks