RE: Comments on RFC2806bis

> > Commas are no problem, and coding is
> > no problem.  It would be a deployment
> > and interoperability inconvenience resulting
> > from some devices supporting rfc2806,
> > others only supporting rfc2806bis.
> 
> You haven't identified what these 
> "inconveniences" would be. I think 
> there's general agreement that allowing 
> random character string in 
> context is a potentially large 
> interoperability problem, so we have to 
> pick our poison.

My above comment was in response to the slam
about the 30 second development effort to 
rename "phone-context" to be "context".  
It was not regarding the valid contents
of phone-context.

> > I agree that the new phone-context 
> > definition is better since it forces 
> > structure for potential use with DNS, and it 
> > provides an explicit solution to avoid 
> > accidental duplicate private-prefix names.
> > 
> > We can reformat our rfc2806 usage of 
> > private prefixes to accommodate the 
> > rfc2806bis format.
> 
> Glad to hear that. There having been 
> no other notes on this topic, can 
> we declare it closed?

Yes, assuming your prior email is
still correct that "phone-context" 
shall not be renamed to be "context".