W.r.t. the ID-Checklist. http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html ietm 6.c
I don't think we want that checklist to enumerate all possible phone numbers that can be used as examples. We just give an example. Having said that, it might be good to point out that the ones listed are just 2 example ranges, and that others may exist. David, are you saying that the example for the UK includes numbers that are not valid for use as examples? Maybe it is indeed not valid for all area codes. We could add a note to state that they should pick up an area code listed on the web page that we point to, namely: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/num_drama We got the info from Jim Reid by the way, whom I have also copied. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 15:03 > To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-validation-arch-04.txt > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for > draft-ietf-enum-validation-arch-04.txt. > For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. > > The issue around use of actual phone numbers in -03 has > been corrected in the -04 version. > > The ID checklist does not contain a complete or completely > correct list of fictitious phone numbers for the UK, but > it does contain a link to the official source of that info. > I've added Bert Wijnen to the cc: list for this review as > he's listed as author of that checklist. > > The ID checklist says that the UK drama number range is: > UK: +44-<geographic-area-code>-496-<0000-0999> > > The numbers used in the -04 version of the draft are: > a) (e.g. +44 20 7946 xxxx) > b) (e.g. +44 20 79460999, +44 20 794607xx) > c) (eg. +44 909 8790879) > > In a), the "xxxx" might want to be "0xxx", but it's probably ok > as-is. b) is fine. c) turns out to be ok, as it's in a UK "drama" > number range not shown in the ID-Checklist, suggesting that an > update to the ID-Checklist may be in order - a sentence pointing > out that only specific UK geographic area codes have fictitious > phone numbers and that there are additional fictitious phone > number ranges listed on the cited web page would suffice. > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
