Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-cnam (IANA Registration for an Enumservice Calling Name Delivery (CNAM) Information and IANA Registration for URI type 'pstndata' URI type 'pstn') to Proposed Standard
"Clive D.W. Feather" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.enum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> The IESG has received a request from the Telephone Number Mapping WG > (enum) to consider the following document: > - 'IANA Registration for an Enumservice Calling Name Delivery (CNAM) > Information and IANA Registration for URI type 'pstndata' URI type > 'pstn' ' > <draft-ietf-enum-cnam-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard I don't seem to have seen much discussion on this, but it's clear to me that it is nowhere near ready. * Is the URI type 'pstndata' or 'pstn'? Both are used in the document. * Why is there a need for a new URI type rather than just having a data: URI with appropriate contents? * What are the semantics of <telephone-subscriber> in a URI? The examples in section 7 leave it completely confusing. * I believe the 15 character limit may be a North American one - has anyone checked this specification against ETSI standards? [Don't ask me: I'm not familiar enough with them.] * Several parts of the document misspell "available" (including, more than once, spelling it "unavailable"). * Normative reference required to RFC 4234. * In 5.1, cnam is not a media type. * Section 6 paragraph 2: delete the words "in such a way that it may not pass over that country's national borders". That is just one example of a restriction and is not worthy of being separated out. * Section 7: the first two examples cannot be generated from the ABNF. * The examples use an unregistered enumservice type. * Do you have permission from the assignee of +1 505 212 1111 to use it in these documents? [Not a petty comment: see the document's own discussions of privacy.] * Section 8 paragraph 1: this is a North-American-centric comment. Such data is delivered before the first ring. [Plus: "first silent interval" is an ambiguous term with ringing cadences other than those used in NA.] * Sections 6 and 9 are inconsistent in their treatment of e164.arpa. In the former case, should "should not" be "SHOULD NOT"? -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <[email protected]> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <[email protected]> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 THUS plc | |