-----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.
