Subject: [martini] #39: Section 1 Explanatory Text

From: "martini issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:20:08 -0000

#39: Section 1 Explanatory Text
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  bernard_aboba@…            |       Owner:  john.elwell@…                     
     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  new                               
 Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:  milestone1                        
Component:  reqs                       |     Version:  1.0                               
 Severity:  In WG Last Call            |    Keywords:                                    
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 The last two paragraphs of Section 1 provide background on the issues
 involved in supporting E.164 numbers versus non-E.164 numbers and name-
 based URIs.  Given the ongoing discussion relating to this (including
 OLIVE), do we need this text, or can we remove it from the requirements
 document and put it elsewhere, such as in a solutions document?  If we do
 decide we need this text, is the existing text satisfactory?

 =================================================================
 Telephone numbers are conveyed either as TEL URIs or as SIP URIs.
 SIP URIs based on E.164 telephone numbers have the property that
 the domain part is irrelevant, since the fully qualified E.164
 number in the user part is globally unique. This makes it easier
 for both the SIP-PBX and the SSP to share responsibility for
 routing requests targeted at such a URI: the SSP can perform
 contact routing for a request targeted at a URI with the SSP
 domain name, and can change the domain name when forwarding the
 request to the SIP-PBX; the latter can then perform contact
 routing to reach a UA registered with the SIP-PBX. Name-based
 SIP-URIs do not have this property, and an SSP would not be able
 to change the domain part when forwarding the request with a
 target URI having the SSP's domain name, yet would be unable to
 perform contact routing on a request with a target URI having the
 SIP-PBX's domain name (without some means of acting as a host for
 the SIP-PBX's domain name).

 Non-E.164-based telephone numbers (e.g., private numbers) can be
 conveyed either as TEL URIs or as SIP URIs, and can be made
 globally unique by means of the phone-context parameter.  In this
 case the domain part of a SIP URI might again be irrelevant.  The
 use of non-E.164-based telephone numbers as AORs is far less
 common, and therefore this document does not require that support
 be available.  However, it is likely that the solution will not
 preclude such AORs.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/martini/trac/ticket/39>
martini <http://tools.ietf.org/martini/>

---

From: "martini issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:31:25 -0000

Comment(by john.elwell@…):

 I believe the consensus at IETF#77 was to put such text into the
 Requirements draft (statement from Jon Peterson, marked as "agreed"). I
 guess we could discuss again in the context of olive - other opinions?

 John

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/martini/trac/ticket/39#comment:1>
martini <http://tools.ietf.org/martini/>

---

From: "martini issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:56:35 -0000

Discussion during the interim meetings 2010-04-29 suggested that, in the
 context of the 'olive' draft, at least some of the text in question is
 wrong. Furthermore the 'olive' draft covers the points expressed in this
 text, and given the likelihood of progressing work on 'olive', we can
 indeed delete the text from 'reqs'. My intention is to close this as
 'fixed' if no objections.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/martini/trac/ticket/39#comment:2>
martini <http://tools.ietf.org/martini/>