Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-cnam (IANA Registration for anEnumservice Calling Name Delivery (CNAM) Information and IANARegistration for URI type 'pstndata' URI type 'pstn') toProposed Standard
"Clive D.W. Feather" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.enum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hollenbeck, Scott said: >> * Why is there a need for a new URI type rather than just >> having a data: >> URI with appropriate contents? > > The data: URI was the original proposal. The reviewing AD (Jon) > mandated a change. Apparently there is some desire within the IESG to > deprecate use of the data: URI. Hmm. Can you point me at any documentation for this? [I've been looking at the data: URI in other contexts.] >> * What are the semantics of <telephone-subscriber> in a URI? >> The examples in section 7 leave it completely confusing. > Section 11.2 describes where it came from. That gives me the syntax. But why would I provide one? Why is the caller name for +1 703 555 0100 tied to a URI mentioning +1 505 212 1111? What is going on? >> * 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.] > That's not a North American limit. It's described in ITU-T spec E.164. Um, aren't you confusing it with the 15 digit limit for numbers (excluding the international access code)? >> * Section 7: the first two examples cannot be generated from the ABNF. > Looking at them again I believe there's a ";" missing: > > pstndata:cnam/+15052121111;;charset=us-ascii,Francois%20Audet > > should be syntactically valid. content = > ;charset=us-ascii,Francois%20Audet Yes, that would seem to be correct. -- 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 | |