Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-04.txt

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Mon, 21 June 2010 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: martini@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D688D3A6856 for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iiTG7pr9TazS for <martini@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168E73A683C for <martini@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAJ8HH0xAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACfEXGoJZoPhRsE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,453,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="123884779"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2010 13:37:55 +0000
Received: from [161.44.174.142] (dhcp-161-44-174-142.cisco.com [161.44.174.142]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5LDbtUC029968; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:37:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4C1F6B33.7040506@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:37:55 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <20100617230001.7BCAB3A6B2F@core3.amsl.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAE6057AB0@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4C1BF7EC.7000000@nostrum.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAE7C4C848@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <FF84A09F50A6DC48ACB6714F4666CC7466CD37E118@ESESSCMS0354.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <FF84A09F50A6DC48ACB6714F4666CC7466CD37E118@ESESSCMS0354.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "martini@ietf.org" <martini@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [martini] I-D Action:draft-ietf-martini-gin-04.txt
X-BeenThere: martini@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of en-mass SIP PBX registration mechanisms <martini.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini>
List-Post: <mailto:martini@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini>, <mailto:martini-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:37:51 -0000

Christer Holmberg wrote:

> Q5.	One could claim (and I think Cullen did) that +123 is the same with or without user=phone. But, if the userpart contains some tel-uri parameter the meaning is not the same. For example:
> 
> +1234;param=blah with user=phone is *not* the same as +1234;param=blah without user=phone.

Why?