Re: [martini] #60: Optionality of Service-Route etc.

Right, so in that case I would propose the addition of the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph of section 7:
"With the exception of requirements in section 5.1 relating to the Path header field (RFC 3327), this document does not mandate support for any of the mechanisms discussed in this section. Any requirements in the sub-sections below apply only if the mechanism concerned is supported."

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Lindsay [mailto:brian.lindsay@genband.com] 
> Sent: 23 July 2010 14:27
> To: Elwell, John; martini@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [martini] #60: Optionality of Service-Route etc.
> 
> Hi, 
> 
>   Similar to my comment on GRUU earlier in the week, I would 
> like to see these remain optional as far as the draft is concerned. 
> 
>  I had interpreted the existing intent of Section 7 as 
> describing how the mechanisms work with gin registration (and 
> extending the mechanisms if need be), but not 
> coupling/requiring that a gin registration implementation 
> also implement these mechanisms. If that intent needs to be 
> strengthened in the text that's fine.
> 
> 
> Thanks
>    Brian
> 
> -------------
> Brian Lindsay
> Sr. Architect, System Architecture
> GENBAND
> Office: +1.613.763.3459      
> www.genband.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: martini-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:martini-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of martini issue tracker
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:26 PM
> To: john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com
> Cc: martini@ietf.org
> Subject: [martini] #60: Optionality of Service-Route etc.
> 
> #60: Optionality of Service-Route etc.
> ------------------------------------------------+-------------
> ----------
> ------------------------------------------------+----
>  Reporter:  john.elwell@...                       |       Owner:     
>      Type:  defect                              |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  minor                               |   Milestone:     
> Component:  gin                                 |     Version:     
>  Severity:  In WG Last Call                     |    Keywords:     
> ------------------------------------------------+-------------
> ----------
> ------------------------------------------------+----
>  In section 7:
>  "The following sections describe the means by which this mechanism
>     interacts with relevant REGISTER-related extensions 
> currently defined
>     by the IETF."
> 
>  Perhaps there should be clarification as to whether or not 
> this document  requires support of any of these mechanisms. 
> For example, I don't think  there is any intention to mandate 
> support of the Service-Route header  field - section 7.4 just 
> gives information on the impact if the mechanism  is used. 
> Similarly Path is optional, beyond the specific bits mandated 
>  elsewhere. I don't think there is any intention to mandate 
> support for the  registration event package (7.2) or 
> SIP-Outbound (7.3). Concerning support  for public and 
> temporary GRUUs (7.1), I think this is the subject of a  
> separate discussion. Depending on what is decided for each of 
> these,  either a blanket statement in 7 or individual 
> statements in 7.1/2/3/4  should be added.
> 
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/martini/trac/ticket/60>
> martini <http://tools.ietf.org/martini/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> martini mailing list
> martini@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
> 