Re: [martini] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-martini-gin

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

  On 7/19/10 1:49 PM, Alan Johnston wrote:
> I have reviewed the document and believe it is ready to progress with no
> technical issues.  A few minor issues are noted below that could be
> addressed to improve the document, but aren't worth entering into the
> tracker.
>
> - Alan -
>
> Section 5.1:
>
> The first time the bnc parameter is introduced, it might be worth
> explaining it stands for Bulk Number Contact - the first time I read it
> I thought it stood for Bayonet Neill-Concelman...

Good point.

> Section 5.1:
>
> There are a couple of "must"s that probably are "MUST"s.

That's correct -- these are in the tracker.

> Section 5.2:
>
> There is some justification why the SIP-PBX MUST support Path, but none
> is given here why the Registrar MUST support it.  Is it for the same reason?

Yes. Unless the registrar supports it, including support in the PBX 
isn't particularly useful.

> Section 5.2:
>
> While the SIP-PBX MUST include Proxy-Require:gin, it is possible a
> registration might arrive at a Registrar with a bnc but no
> Proxy-Require:gin.  Should we define the correct behavior of the
> Registrar for this case?

How would that happen?

/a