URQ ambiguity

[Paul E. Jones]

Chris,

> I agree that an endpoint shall not reject its gatekeeper's URQ.
> However, I disagree with you on the other part of this.  If the gatekeeper
> sends a URQ containing no aliases this should be taken as complete
> unregistration.

I think we're in agreement.  I was saying that if a Gatekeeper sends a URQ
without any aliases, that means that the endpoint shall consider itself
unregistered.

Here's what I wrote:

> If a Gatekeeper sends
> a URQ with no aliases, that is
> already understood by all endpoints that the endpoint is no longer
registered

Are we in agreement or am I missing something?

Paul

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com