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

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,
Yes the changed text sounds good - thanks!
-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:23 PM
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: Bernard Aboba; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [martini] Announcement of MARTINI WG last Call on
> "Registration for Multiple Phone Numbers in the SIP"
> 
>   On 7/16/10 10:37 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> > 5) Section 7.2.1 says:
> >     In particular, the "bnc" parameter is forbidden from appearing in
> the
> >     body of a reg-event notify.
> >
> > Something about that statement rings warning bells in my head.  I don't
> know what that something is, but it seems wrong to me. :)  Are we
> absolutely sure this is a normative statement we want, forever?
> 
> The logic here is that subscribers to the event package won't
> necessarily know about the GIN extension. If you send them a "bnc" URI,
> they're going to have no clue that it's not just a normal URI.
> 
> Now, I don't think this prohibition is a "forever" thing. There's
> certainly nothing that says that another extension (say, VERMOUTH) is
> prohibited from overriding this prohibition with another behavior -- so
> long as the subscriber indicates that it would know what to do with a
> "bnc" URI.
> 
> Would the following change address your concern?
> 
> 
>     In particular, the "bnc" parameter is forbidden from appearing in the
>     body of a reg-event notify unless the subscriber has indicated
>     knowledge of the semantics of the "bnc" parameter. The means
>     for indicating this support are out of scope of this document.
> 
> 
> /a