[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The example in Figure 2 uses what appear to be real phone > numbers (or what could be real phone numbers) in Switzerland. > That's not a good idea - see Section 3, subsection 6 of: > > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html > > It's not clear to me whether the fictitious phone numbers described > in the ID-Checklist are sufficient for the examples required > in Figure 2. If fictitious phone numbers in Switzerland are used, > please describe them as fictitious and please provide the IESG > with a reference showing that they are fictitious so that they > can be added to the Checklist's list of available fictitious > phone numbers.
David, thanks for performing the review. We have discussed the issue, and would appreciate feedback on how to proceed. Here's what we've got: - Drama numbers seem to be available in +1 (North America etc.) and +44 (UK). There are no drama numbers in Switzerland and Austria (although the Austrian Regulator RTR recommends to use incomplete numbers (eg. truncated by 2 or 3 digits). The allocation policies in the ranges from which those drama numbers are taken fulfill the "Variant 1" case (assignment via CSP). - However, none of those +1/+44 drama numbers have assignment policies which fulfill the "Variant 2" case (direct assignment to user) So, our choices now are: - Leave the number out completely in the example of variant 2. - Use a drama number for variant 2, nevertheless it would _not_ be assigned that way, and add a note about this deficiency. - Use truncated "real" numbers as recommended by the Austrian Regulator. We'd appreciate feedback on what would be preferred - probably this can even be addressed in a completely different way? thanks, Alex & Bernie. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
