Re: [martini] Announcement of MARTINI WG last Call on "Registration for Multiple Phone Numbers in the SIP"

["Elwell, John" <[e-mail]>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: 16 July 2010 16:37
> To: Bernard Aboba; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [martini] Announcement of MARTINI WG last Call 
> on "Registration for Multiple Phone Numbers in the SIP"
> 
> 
> Howdy,
> I've reviewed the latest gin draft and think it is ready for 
> consideration by the IESG, if the following changes/comments 
> are made/addressed (these will also be added in the tools database):
> 
> 1) Section 5.2 says:
>    A registrar that receives a Contact URI with both a "bnc" parameter
>    and a user portion MUST either discard the user portion and process
>    the request as if the parameter were not present or return 
> a 400 (Bad
>    Request) error in response (unless some other error code is more
>    appropriate).
> 
>    Section 5.3 says:
>    When a SIP-PBX registers with an SSP using a "bnc" contact, that
>    contact MUST NOT include a "user" parameter.  An SSP registrar that
>    receives a Contact URI with both a "bnc" parameter and a "user"
>    parameter MUST either discard the "user" parameter and process the
>    request as if the parameter were not present or return a 400 (Bad
>    Request) error in response (unless some other error code is more
>    appropriate).
> 
> I think we need to pick one and only one behavior - having 
> some Registrars accept these and others not leads to 
> inconsistent interoperability among vendor equipment.  Since 
> at some future time we may find a need for the user portion, 
> but will probably want backwards-compatibility without 
> failure at that time, I recommend for 5.2 we stipulate a 
> Registrar compliant to this draft MUST discard and ignore the 
> user portion and process the request as if the user portion 
> were not present; and for 5.3 the same for a "user" param.  
> This would also follow the mantra of strict on send, liberal 
> on receipt.
[JRE] Sounds reasonable to me.

John