Hense your opinion is to respin the document??? <please comment> I certainly have no problem with that as far as the WG goes this is a editorial change and does not change the consensus of the WG.
Patrik? Concur? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 5:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-validation-arch-03.txt > > Richard and Alex, > > > This is a very very minor editorial comment that does not > > affect the WG last call or IESG approval. > > At least for IESG approval, I believe that's incorrect, as I > believe I've seen an AD Discuss promised on this issue for a > different draft. The phone number item is in the ID-Checklist > for good reasons. Ultimately, this is Brian Carpenter's call, > as I'm effectively his reviewer. > > IMHO, variant 1 clearly ought to use fictitious or drama numbers. > For variant 2, Alex's alternatives of using a fictitious or drama > number and explaining that it wouldn't be allocated that way makes > sense: > > > > - Use a drama number for variant 2, nevertheless it would > > > _not_ be assigned that way, and add a note about this deficiency. > > There's precedent for this, as RFC 4632 (the new CIDR RFC) does > something analogous with Internet address allocation - that RFC uses > private address space blocks (e.g., 10.0.0.0/8, see RFC 1918) in its > examples of allocation of global Internet addresses, even though the > private addresses aren't globally routable and hence would never be > allocated by a service provider as global Internet addresses. The > clarity of the examples does not seem to be affected. > > OTOH, if there is a good reason for not using US or UK numbers in > the examples, use of a truncated number may be ok. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Senior Technologist > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 9:58 AM > > To: 'Alexander Mayrhofer'; Black, David > > Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-validation-arch-03.txt > > > > > > > > You have two choices one respin the document and we proceed > > as normal. > > > > This is a very very minor editorial comment that does not affect the > WG last > > call or IESG approval. > > > > The second alternative is a note to the RFC editor when it goes into > 48 hour > > last call. > > > > > > I don't understand why drama numbers have to have assignment > > policies they > > are just numbers. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alexander Mayrhofer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:32 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of > > draft-ietf-enum-validation-arch-03.txt > > > > > > [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
