[reSIProcate] [ReSIProcate_1.1_RC2] submit a patch for DUM/ClientPublication.cxx

[Michael Froman]

Actually, I not sure that there is a bug here.
>>> In fact publishing again with expires set to 0 and without a Sip- 
>>> if-match will raise a 412 again and again !!!
If the client publishes again with expires set to 0 (and no body) and  
no SIP-If-Match, the ESC should be responding with a 400 Invalid  
Request as detailed in RFC3093, Section 6 (Processing PUBLISH  
Requests), step 5:
       *  If the request has no message body and contained no entity- 
tag,
          the ESC SHOULD reject the request with an appropriate  
response,
          such as 400 (Invalid Request), and skip the remainder of the
          steps.  Alternatively, in case either ESC local policy or the
          event package has defined semantics for an initial publication
          containing no message body, the ESC MAY accept it.

What implementation is responding to the rePUBLISH with a 412?


Regards,
Michael Froman.


On Mar 16, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Byron Campen wrote:

> 	Well, we haven't exactly codified who is responsible for applying  
> patches. Usually it just goes to whoever knows the code fairly  
> well, and is around. However, IETF is happening next week, so a lot  
> of people are in the air right now (both figuratively and  
> literally). DUM is something that I have just started wading into,  
> and I am uneasy about applying patches without feedback from those  
> who wrote most of that code.
>
> Scott, have you looked at this?
>
> As for when the next release is, the answer is soon (I had  
> originally intended to designate 1.1-RC2 as the official release  
> this evening, but since a couple of bugs have been discovered in  
> the last few days, I'll have to wait for the fixes and cut RC3,  
> probably sometime early next week.)
>
> Best regards,
> Byron Campen
>
>
>> Byron
>>
>> I do not think that a call to handler->onFailure() is necessary,  
>> the aim is "in fine" to do the unPublish.
>>
>> Just another question, who is responsible of merging this patch  
>> into the reSIProcate project ?
>>
>> Any idea for the next release date ?
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Fabrice ROUILLIER
>>
>> De : Byron Campen [mailto:bcampen at estacado.net]
>> Envoyé : jeudi 15 mars 2007 22:50
>> À : zze-Omnipresence ROUILLIER F ext RD-MAPS-REN
>> Cc : resiprocate-devel; Scott Godin
>> Objet : Re: [reSIProcate] [ReSIProcate_1.1_RC2] submit a patch for  
>> DUM/ClientPublication.cxx
>>
>> Good find. Now, would it be necessary to call handler->onFailure()  
>> in this case? Is getting a 412 considered a "failure" for an  
>> unPUBLISH? (As far as intent goes, it seems not to me)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Byron Campen
>>
>>> Dear reSIProcate team,
>>>
>>> I find a bug in the implementation of the "ClientPublication"  
>>> class when handling response to a 412 message received from server.
>>>
>>> You previously remove the "SIP-if-match" tag and republish the  
>>> document.
>>>
>>> This SHALL NOT be done if the 412 response is received when  
>>> trying to end the publication (Expires header set to 0)
>>>
>>> In that case nothing more have to be done !
>>>
>>> In fact publishing again with expires set to 0 and without a Sip- 
>>> if-match will raise a 412 again and again !!!
>>>
>>>
>>> void ClientPublication::dispatch(const SipMessage& msg) {
>>>
>>> ...
>>>          if (code == 412)
>>>          {
>>>                         // Receive a 412 while ending a  
>>> publication, nothing more to do in this case.
>>>                         if(mPublish->header(h_Expires).value() !=  
>>> 0 )
>>>                         {
>>>                                 InfoLog(<< "SIPIfMatch failed --  
>>> republish");
>>>                                 mPublish->remove(h_SIPIfMatch);
>>>                                 update(mDocument);
>>>                                 return;
>>>                         }
>>>                         else {
>>>                                 delete this;
>>>                                 return;
>>>                         }
>>>          }
>>>          else if (code == 423) // interval too short
>>>
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> Hope this will be corrected in next candidate release
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> Fabrice ROUILLIER
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
>>> resiprocate-devel at list.resiprocate.org
>>> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at list.resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel