[Iptel] Nits review for trunk-group
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@lucent.com> Tue, 29 November 2005 18:40 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EhAOv-0006YZ-Vv; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:40:25 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EhAOr-0006V7-CN for iptel@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:40:23 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17560 for <iptel@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:39:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EhAiy-00074A-RP for iptel@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:01:09 -0500
Received: from ihmail.ih.lucent.com (h135-1-218-70.lucent.com [135.1.218.70]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jATIe6u5018091; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:40:06 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [135.185.173.147] (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.173.147]) by ihmail.ih.lucent.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id jATIe6r06782; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:40:06 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <438CA085.80307@lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:40:05 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@lucent.com>
Organization: Wireless Networks Research and Development
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF IPTEL WG <iptel@ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a4e5f67c5e230eddf754446d1a2201a4
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: [Iptel] Nits review for trunk-group
X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Telephony <iptel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/iptel>
List-Post: <mailto:iptel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0987200337=="
Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Folks: During the nits review of trunk-group, the two points of feedback were the lexicographic ordering of tel URI parameters and updating the draft to reflect the newly created I-D on tel URI parameter IANA registry. Accordingly, I am proposing that the trunk-group I-D be modified as described below (if you want to see this in the context of the draft, please see http://www.iit.edu/~gurbvij/I-D/draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group-05.html or http://www.iit.edu/~gurbvij/I-D/draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group-05.txt). I propose that Section 6 be modified as follows: The ABNF will now look like: par = parameter / extension / isdn-subaddress / trunk-group / trunk-context trunk-group = ";tgrp=" trunk-group-label trunk-context = ";trunk-context=" descriptor The following paragraph will be added: Trunk groups are identified by two parameters: "tgrp" and "trunk- context"; both of these parameters MUST be present in a tel URI to identify a trunk group. All implementations conforming to this specification MUST generate both of these parameters when using trunk groups. If an implementation receives a tel URI with only one of the "tgrp" or "trunk-context" parameters, it MUST act as if there were not any trunk group identifiers present at all in that URI. Whether or not to further process such an URI is up to the discretion of the implementation, however, if a decision is made to process it, the implementation must act as if there were not any trunk group identifiers present in the URI. In addition, a historical note is to be added on the lexicographic ordering of URI parameters as specified in rfc3261: Note that the base comparison rules for a sip or sips URI that has been derived from a tel URI mandate that the telephone-subscriber parameters be ordered lexically by parameter name (see Section 19.1.6 of [3]). Thus, when comparing a sip URI that has been derived from a tel URI, implementations MUST not assume that the "tgrp" and "trunk-context" parameters will appear in a consecutive manner because parameters defined by other tel URI extensions may lexically fit between "tgrp" and "trunk-context". Section 9 (IANA considerations) be modified as follows: The IANA registry for tel URIs is specified in [5]. It is initially seeded with the two trunk group parameters contained in this specification. For the sake of completeness, the IANA template for the two trunk group parameters is also specified below. Parameter name: tgrp ... Parameter name: trunk-context ... I will be submitting the final document early next week. Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Ph.D. vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org} Lucent Technologies/Bell Laboratories, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440 Naperville, Illinois 60566 Voice: +1 630 224 0216
_______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
- [Iptel] Nits review for trunk-group Vijay K. Gurbani