Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph

Hi,

I wasn't suggesting to mandate Outbound. It was more of a question of clarification, and I think I got an answer from Adam.

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: Richard Shockey [richard@shockey.us]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:24 PM
To: 'Adam Roach'; Christer Holmberg
Cc: martini@ietf.org; 'Hadriel Kaplan'
Subject: RE: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph

Thank you for that .. NO mandate OUTBOUND.

-----Original Message-----
From: martini-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Adam Roach
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:37 AM
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: martini@ietf.org; Hadriel Kaplan
Subject: Re: [martini] New text for gin section 7.1.1 first paragraph

  On 09/28/2010 11:33 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>> You can look at it that way, or you can look at it a different way: all
GIN is (supposed) to be doing is>>specifying a means to use REGISTER for
bulk contacts
>> I don't think that's a complete description.
>>
>> What MARTINI is chartered to do is "standardize a multiple-AoR
>> registration mechanism for SIP", *and* (here's the important part)
>> "accommodate existing SIP extensions relating to registration by
>> ensuring that they are not precluded from use
>> in the context of multiple AoR registrations".
>>
>> In other words, we need to specify a means to use REGISTER for bulk
>> contacts *and* to fix anything that breaks.
> Shouldn't we then also mandate the support of Outbound, to make sure it
works if the PBX is behind a NAT?
>

No. Because, although that is a problem, it is not a problem that
MARTINI has made worse.

/a
_______________________________________________
martini mailing list
martini@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini