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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

  On 7/12/10 4:25 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
> 1. "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 ..."
> It doesn't make sense. If the parameter were not present, one would expect a user portion to be present. I think this should say :
> "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 user portion were not present or ..."
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Agreed.

> 2. "Currently, the descriptions are somewhat informal, and omit some
>     details for the sake of brevity.  If the MARTINI working group
>     expresses interest in furthering the mechanism described by this
>     document, they will be fleshed out with more detail and formality."
> This seems to be historic and should be deleted.

Agreed.

> 3. "   When a UA registers with the SIP-PBX using GRUU procedures for a
>     Contact, the SIP-PBX adds an "sg" parameter to the GRUU parameter it
>     received from the SSP.  This "sg" parameter contains a disambiguation
>     token that the SIP-PBX can use to route the request to the proper
>     user agent."
> This isn't terribly clear. Rewording as follows might help:
> "When a UA registers a contact with the SIP-PBX using GRUU procedures, the SIP-PBX provides to the UA a public GRUU formed by adding an "sg" parameter to the GRUU parameter it received from the SSP.  This "sg" parameter contains a disambiguation token that the SIP-PBX can use to route inbound requests to the proper UA."

I like the rewording.

> 4. "The SSP registrar then maps I_i to the "bnc" AOR template and
>        instance ID using the database, a persistent hash-map or similar
>        technology."
> This is the first use of the expression "AOR template and instance ID". We could do with some clarification, but I don't have a proposal. We have something that could be described as a template, but I would have considered that to be a contact template rather than an AOR template.
>

I propose "...maps I_i to the contact and instance ID using the 
database...."

> 5. "(1) The SIP-PBX registers with the SSP for a range of AORs.
>         It includes the URI it expects to receive in the Request-URI
>         in its "Contact" header field, and includes information that
>         routes to the SIP-PBX in the "Path" header field."
> I think "the URI" should be changed to "the domain". Only the domain part of the REGISTER request's Contact header field will appear in the Request-URI of the inbound request.

But it's not really just the domain -- it can have parameters. Perhaps 
'It indicates the form of the URI it expects to receive in the 
Request-URI in its "Contact" header field....'

/a