Re: [reSIProcate] CSeq is incorrect in NOTIFY generated by DUM on SUBSCRIBE

[Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Apparently not. We should probably fix that.

/a

Robert Sparks wrote:
> We don't check for out-of-order requests?
>
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>
> > I think (hope) Jason was talking about removing the "remote cseq" 
> > field. I'd wait for him to get to a non-virtual keyboard -- where he 
> > can examine the code himself -- for clarification.
> >
> > /a
> >
> >
> > Robert Sparks wrote:
> > > Well, if there was to be a change, it would not be to use the CSeq 
> > > from the other side, but rather to start at somewhere random instead 
> > > of always at 1.
> > >
> > > While I don't really see a need to change to this random start 
> > > (because I don't see any benefit), I'm really uncomfortable with the 
> > > claim you're making here that it might do harm.
> > >
> > > (I agree with watching out for unintended consequences in general, 
> > > but for this particular instance, if the change broke some peer, 
> > > then introducing a challenging proxy, for instance,
> > > would break that same peer).
> > >
> > > RjS
> > >
> > > On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Jason Fischl wrote:
> > >
> > > > My gut feeling here is to leave it unchanged. These kind of changes 
> > > > may have unintended consequences.
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 24, 2009, at 6:55, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Volodymyr:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the suggestion.
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of the local CSeq: According to RFC 3261, The CSeq number 
> > > > > space is unique in each direction. In other words, the CSeq in the 
> > > > > NOTIFY is completely unrelated to the CSeq in the SUBSCRIBE. The 
> > > > > original code is correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with you that the remote CSeq is not used, and can likely 
> > > > > be removed. I'd be interested to have Scott, Jason, and Derek 
> > > > > weigh in on whether this can be safely removed, or if there are 
> > > > > some future plans for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > /a
> > > > >
> > > > > Volodymyr Tarasenko wrote:
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I see dum is incorrectly generates CSeq in NOTIFY in case when 
> > > > > > SUBSCRIBE's SCeq was not 1. NOTIFY's CSeq always starts from 2 in 
> > > > > > spite of CSeq in SUBSCRIBE was not 1.
> > > > > > The fast patch is very simple:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- resip/dum/Dialog.cxx
> > > > > > +++ resip/dum/Dialog.cxx
> > > > > > @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
> > > > > >     }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     mRemoteCSeq = request.header(h_CSeq).sequence();
> > > > > > -      mLocalCSeq = 1;
> > > > > > +      mLocalCSeq = request.header(h_CSeq).sequence();
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     DebugLog ( << "************** Created Dialog as UAS 
> > > > > > **************" );
> > > > > >     DebugLog ( << "mRemoteNameAddr: " << mRemoteNameAddr );
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, after code review I've found that mRemoteCSeq is never used 
> > > > > > and looks like it could be safety removed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Volodymyr!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    _______________________________________________
> > > > > > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > > > > > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > > > > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > > > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel