Section 1.2 & 2 of 3761bis

Moved from E2MD:

On Tue, 18 May 2010, Lawrence Conroy wrote (in context of E2MD):

> [Assuming we can roll back some of the more arcane restrictions
> in section 1.2 of rfc3761bis and the bit moved into the second
> paragraph of the intro of section 2].

As Gonzalo already pointed out this part of 3761bis needs revision before
it goes to IESG.

Section 1.2. appears at best "confusing"...or should I rather say 
"broken", as it mixes up private ENUM instances that are based on the 
E.164 dial plan and those private instances that do not use E.164 numbers.

    If these mechanisms are re-used, the suffix used for the private
    dialing plan MUST NOT be e164.arpa, to avoid conflict with this
    specification.  Parties to the private dialing plan will need to know
    the suffix used by their private dialing plan for correct operation
    of these mechanisms.  Further, the application unique string used
    SHOULD be the full number as specified, but without the leading '+',
    and such private use MUST NOT be called "ENUM" because the leading
    "E" in this acronym explicitly stands for "E.164".


Section 2 on the other hand makes it practically impossible to use ENUM 
with non-E.164 numbering plans:

   To mitigate this risk, the "E2U" token MUST NOT
   provisioned in domains associated with non-E.164 numbers.


Furthermore I am not sure if the introcuction section is the right place 
to make mandatory statements. IMHO It should be rather an applicability 
statement section or similar.


Note: I understand you inherited this part from RFC 3761.

cheers,
  Bernie