SIP2SIP

Dear Adrian,

I dont mind to get second Blink. But will it fix problem?
How, can I be sure that between Blink - Blink presence would be visible?
At the moment, what I can see, that Jitsu with unpaid account can see Xlite with paid account, and Xlite/Jitsu with paid account cant see unpaid Blink.
Sorry, but I think something is not right here. It is definitely NOT client specific. Simply because paid account used non Blink client is still visible on non Blink clients but not opposite way around.
However we have one final step to check Blink to Blink.
Again, if you think it will work I dont mind to spend another 14$ for second Blink, but can we be sure that both Blinks will see presence of two different accounts?
Appreciate your guidance.
With thanks and regards
p.s. can you please check that all internal systems settings for that 3 accounts are the same?

SIP2SIP uses RLS and OMA presence rules for presence policy. Neither Jitsi nor Counterpath support RLS notifications, and neither can manage the XCAP document for presence policy used by SIP2SIP either as they do not implement these standards . What you get is some partial things that work between those clients. It has nothing to with paying or not, it has to do with implementing these standards:

• SIP Specific Event Notification (SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY methods) RFC3265
• SIP Extension for Event State Publication (PUBLISH method) RFC3903
• SIP Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists Contact Information Extension to PIDF RFC4482
• Presence Data Model (PIDF) RFC3863, RFC3379, RFC4479
• Watcher-info Event Package RFC3857, RFC3858
• Common Policy RFC4745 and Presence Rules RFC5025 (with support for external references specified by OMA org.openmobilealliance.pres-rules)
• Resource Lists RFC4826 (with support for external references specified by OMA)
• RLS Services RFC4826 and RLMI document handling RFC4662
• PIDF manipulation RFC4827
• XCAP Protocol RFC4825
• XCAP Diff RFC5874

Counterpath and Jiti user agents do no implement several of these standards from this list. Blink does and they way it does it, is explained here:

http://projects.ag-projects.com/news/15

In order for Blink to see the availability of other accounts, the SIP clients used for those accounts must provide the policy for the subscribers. Both clients you named, are not able to manage that policy which technically is by uploading an XCAP document called org.openmobilealliance.pres-rules on sip2sip server.

But why "promerita" account on Jitsi can see PRESENCE of "spinor" account on Jitsi? and not opposite way . As you can see we dont use Blink here...
I used "paid" / "unpaid" just to emphasize different accounts which are the same in settings and clients use, not specifically to say that that happened because of paid or not. Appreciate your technical guidance, but at the end why Jitsu with "promerita" see "spinor" on Jitsu and not opposite way?

p.s. I will make screenshots tomorrow to show.

If Jitsu DONT (as you clearly explained technically), then why Jitsu DO with one account and DONT with other two? See screenshots in previous pst.
Its sort of clear that technically only Blink is 100% compatible.
But again, why Jitsu DO on one account and DONT with two others?
If it does not work, then it should be mutual right? it should be no difference which account right? Because no difference in accounts right?

But why, Jitsu with two specific accounts can see PRESENCE of another specific account with Jitsu ???? and that two other accounts (sorry, with Jitsu again) CANT see presence of each other! What is so specific with that "spinor" account that make it work on Jitsu?

What actually can differ one account from other?

You see, it is not HW or client SW specific.
In my current setup computers/LAN the same. Actually I swopped them but result still the same.
SW client same for both accounts (Jitsu).
Account settings in client SW (Jitsu) the same.

Hope its real "plane english" here :)

Can you help/check?
p.s. please look on screenshots from previous post... it is so clear... will make few more to show that two other accounts on same LAN/PC with same settings CAN NOT see each other presence, however they CAN see presence of specifically "spinor" account.

I think I got one small clue...
Many time happened, that when you startup other accounts (promerita and unlis) you need to accept authorisation request from spinor.
However it never happened opposite way. What ever client SW was used. Again, it is looks like, not client specific feature. If I start Blink with "promerita" I receive authorisation request from "spinor" to authorise. Or if I start Jitsu with "promerita", again, I receive authorisation request from "spinor" to authorise. Same for thirst account with different client SW. However, only now I understood I never saw "authorization" request from "promerita"/"unlis" accounts, independently what client SW was used (I checked all of them Blink,Jitsu,Xlite).

Logically speaking, it is looks like, one account (in our case "spinor") sending authorization requests, but another two dont?
And it cant be client SW specific because I used Blink with that "availability feature active", and Jitsu on both sides, however result is same.

Dear Adruian,

Just to sum up.
To my understanding, what you trying to explain, that this situation happened because 3rd party SW is not technically 100% compatible.
And what I am trying to explain, that it is NOT client SW problem, but rather accounts problem what ever weird sound it may be.

And logic here is simple. In plane english- we have 3 accounts: #1, #2 and #3
When we use SAME client SW for all, we have the following:

#2 and #3 can see presence of #1, however they cant see presence between (#2 and #3), same as #1 cant see presence of #2 and #3.

If it can be client specific, then no chance that #2/3 can see presence of #1 right? because clients are not technically compatible right?
As you can see here, the only differentiating factor here is account itself and not client SW.

Am I wrong in my logic somewhere?