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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

  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