Subject: [martini] #45: Section 5.3

From: "martini issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:28:47 -0000

#45: Section 5.3
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
 Reporter:  john.elwell@…                       |       Owner:            
     Type:  defect                              |      Status:  new       
 Priority:  major                               |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  gin                                 |     Version:  1.0       
 Severity:  Active WG Document                  |    Keywords:            
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
 Changes look good in general. I noticed the following in 5.3:

 "An SSP registrar that
    receives such a URI MAY discard the "user" parameter and process the
    request as if the parameter were not present.  Alternately, it MAY
    return a 400 (Bad Request) error in response.

       Note that this requirement is talking about the user parameter of
       a URI:"

 1. Instead of two "MAY"s, would it be better to have a "MUST do either ...
 or ..."? The present formulation allows other behaviours - I don't know
 whether we intend that or not.

 2. In the note, what exactly does "this requirement" apply to? Presumably
 the "MUST" that came earlier, although if we do as I suggest in 1, we
 would end up with a second MUST, so we might need to say "these
 requirements". Depending on the resolution of 1, I think the note could do
 with some clarification.

 [Adam Roach]
 Changes look good in general. I noticed the following in 5.3:

 "An SSP registrar that
    receives such a URI MAY discard the "user" parameter and process the
    request as if the parameter were not present.  Alternately, it MAY
    return a 400 (Bad Request) error in response.

       Note that this requirement is talking about the user parameter of
       a URI:"

 1. Instead of two "MAY"s, would it be better to have a "MUST do either ...
 or ..."? The present formulation allows other behaviours - I don't know
 whether we intend that or not.

 2. In the note, what exactly does "this requirement" apply to? Presumably
 the "MUST" that came earlier, although if we do as I suggest in 1, we
 would end up with a second MUST, so we might need to say "these
 requirements". Depending on the resolution of 1, I think the note could do
 with some clarification.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/martini/trac/ticket/45>
martini <http://tools.ietf.org/martini/>

---

From: "martini issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:29:57 -0000

#45: Section 5.3
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
 Reporter:  john.elwell@…                       |       Owner:  adam@…          
     Type:  defect                              |      Status:  new             
 Priority:  major                               |   Milestone:  milestone1      
Component:  gin                                 |     Version:  1.0             
 Severity:  Active WG Document                  |    Keywords:                  
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Changes (by bernard_aboba@…):

  * owner:  => adam@…

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/martini/trac/ticket/45#comment:1>
martini <http://tools.ietf.org/martini/>