RE: Entity comments

In hindsight (after having seen discussion over the last 2 days)
and based on:
> So, in the beginning we evaluated our options for creating 
> states and agreed
> there was value in leverage the OSI (X.731) state work rather than
> re-inventing the wheel, but as Dave indicated we said we would make
> modifications as we deemed appropriate. We have done this, 
> mainly through
> only picking the states we thought were useful, the addition 
> of enumerations
> to the states and additional descriptions of their application to our
> problem domain. 
> 
> Where we have ended up is we are somewhere in between the 
> using the OSI
> states and doing our own thing, perhaps leaning more towards 
> the OSI side.
> The positioning in this spectrum has affected the proposed 
> resolutions to a
> number of issues around naming. Even though these don't 
> affect functionality
> at all, people seem to feel strongly about them. (Yes, there are other
> issues which do affect functionality, but that's not what I'm 
> talking about
> here). Here are the high level issues
> 
> 1. Prefixing the TCs with ITU prefix. The answer to this 
> depends on where we are in that spectrum.
> 
It seems that a ITU is NOT the proper prefix.
But some prefix does make sense.

Bert