Re: [sipcore] SIP Push with mid-dialog request triggered notifications: Way forward - The text using PURK - Pull request

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 9/28/18 3:41 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> ‘PURP (Proxy Unique Registration Pointer)’
> 
> ‘URP (Unique Registration Pointer)’

I don't like the use of "pointer" here. These are not pointers. They are 
identifiers. URID would work, though it may be too similar to other 
things. How about UPRID (Unique Proxy Registration ID), or PURID.

Or what about Proxy Unique Temporary Registration ID (PUTRID)? :)

	Thanks,
	Paul

> *From:*Christer Holmberg
> *Sent:* 28 September 2018 10:23
> *To:* Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>; Jonathan 
> Lennox <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* SIPCORE <[e-mail]>; Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [sipcore] SIP Push with mid-dialog request triggered 
> notifications: Way forward - The text using PURK - Pull request
> 
> Would ‘PURF (Proxy Unique Registration Reference)’ be better?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> *From:*sipcore [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Christer 
> Holmberg
> *Sent:* 27 September 2018 19:04
> *To:* Jonathan Lennox <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* SIPCORE <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Roman 
> Shpount <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject:* Re: [sipcore] SIP Push with mid-dialog request triggered 
> notifications: Way forward - The text using PURK - Pull request
> 
> Give me a better name and I’ll change it…
> 
> *From:*Jonathan Lennox [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 27 September 2018 18:57
> *To:* Christer Holmberg <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* Roman Shpount <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> SIPCORE <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject:* Re: [sipcore] SIP Push with mid-dialog request triggered 
> notifications: Way forward - The text using PURK - Pull request
> 
> I have no comment on the mechanism, but I find it unfortunate to have a 
> new object called a “PURK” when the IETF is also working on a mechanism 
> called “PERC”...
> 
>     On Sep 25, 2018, at 4:21 AM, Christer Holmberg
>     <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     Are people (others than Roman) ok with this? I’d like to merge the
>     PR and submit a new version of the draft.
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Christer
> 
>     *From:*Roman Shpount <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Date:*Saturday 22 September 2018 at 00:08
>     *To:*Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc:*"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Subject:*Re: [sipcore] SIP Push with mid-dialog request triggered
>     notifications: Way forward - The text using PURK - Pull request
> 
>     On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Christer Holmberg
>     <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>         >This update looks good. The only remaining question is should
>         proxy generated>new PURK on each binding refresh or periodically
>         based on local policy. In RFC>5627, temp-gruu was generated on
>         each binding refresh so that UA can obtain new>value on demand.
> 
>         Since the frequency of binding refreshes can vary quite much, I
>         don’t think we should mandate a new value for each refresh.
> 
>     In this case, current update looks good to me.
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     _____________
>     Roman Shpount
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     sipcore mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>