RE: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submitted
"Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <mhammer@cisco.com> Thu, 09 February 2006 14:32 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7Cqx-0000Nq-Tq; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:32:59 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7Cqv-0000L2-S2 for iptel@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:32:57 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26214 for <iptel@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:31:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7D3k-0001dJ-6d for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:46:12 -0500
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2006 06:32:48 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k19EWbWd028967; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 06:32:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.53]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:32:43 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submitted
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:32:42 -0500
Message-ID: <072C5B76F7CEAB488172C6F64B30B5E3010FA1EF@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submitted
Thread-Index: AcYs/otvt72/DzeTSKeW8h6/XgvLmAAhvbDQ
From: "Michael Hammer (mhammer)" <mhammer@cisco.com>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@lucent.com>, "Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen)" <jdrosen@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2006 14:32:43.0287 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFF90270:01C62D85]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2bf730a014b318fd3efd65b39b48818c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF IPTEL WG <iptel@ietf.org>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Telephony <iptel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/iptel>
List-Post: <mailto:iptel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Maybe I don't understand. What is the difference between Table 1 and 2? Table 2 appears to be a subset. Why not just a single table? Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: iptel-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:18 PM > To: Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen) > Cc: IETF IPTEL WG; Cullen Jennings (fluffy) > Subject: Re: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submitted > > (For a full text of Jonathan's comments, please see: > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iptel/current/msg01006.html) > > On December 15, 2005 Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > > Thanks for the quick turnaround on all this stuff, guys. > Here are some > > comments on the draft. A couple are more than just nits and may > > require some discussion: > > Jonathan: I am in the process of closing the work on this I-D. > Most of what you write below has been incorporated. Please > see inline for the ones that require some discussions. > > >> The tel URI parameter registry contains a column that indicates > >> whether or not each parameter only accepts a set of predefined > >> values. The column can contain Yes, No, or NA. Implementers of > >> parameters with a "yes" in that column need to find all the valid > >> parameter values in the RFCs provided as references. > Parameters that > >> are not allowed to have a parameters have a value of "NA". > > > > > > So, what does "No" mean? None of the entries in the > registry are "No". > > I originally thought No applied to parameters whose values > were either > > infinite in scope, or were a finite set, but from a set not defined > > through enumeration (for example, the set of phone numbers). But, > > things like isub are "Yes", so I'm confused. > > Suggested modification > > <MODIFICATION> > Accordingly, the tel URI parameter registry contains a column that > indicates whether or not each parameter only accepts a set of > predefined values. The column can contain "Yes", or > "No". A value > of "Yes" in the column implies that certain predefined > values exist > for this parameter and the accompanying RFC should be consulted to > find out the accepted set of values. A value of "No" in > the column > implies that the parameter is used either as a flag, or > does not have > a set of predefined values. The accompanying RFC should > provide more > information on the semantics of the parameter. > > 4. IANA Considerations > > The specification creates a new IANA registry named "tel URI > Parameters". > > 4.1 tel URI Parameters Registry > > New tel URI parameters and new values for existing URI > parameters are > registered by the IANA. When registering a new tel parameter the > following information MUST be provided. > > o Name of the parameter. > o Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined values. > o Reference to the RFC defining the parameter and to any RFC that > defines new values for the parameter. > > Table 1 contains the initial values for this registry. > > Parameter Name Predefined Values Reference > -------------- ----------------- --------- > isub Yes [RFC 3966] > ext Yes [RFC 3966] > phone-context Yes [RFC 3966] > enumdi No [RFC AAAA] > npdi No [RFC BBBB] > rn Yes [RFC BBBB] > rn-context Yes [RFC BBBB] > cic Yes [RFC BBBB] > cic-context Yes [RFC BBBB] > tgrp Yes [RFC CCCC] > trunk-context Yes [RFC CCCC] > > Table 1: IANA tel URI parameter registry </MODIFICATION> > > >> When registering a new tel parameter or a new value for a > parameter, > > > > ..new value for an existing parameter... > > > > Actually, I'd suggest a different template for registering a new > > parameter vs. a new value for an existing parameter. In the former > > case, you need everything you've listed. In the latter > case, you only > > provide the parameter name and the RFC number; you > shouldn't provide a > > value for the "predefined value" column. Indeed, you can > only register > > new values for parameters whose "preddefined value" columnb > is "Yes", > > and the instructions to IANA need to state that. > > Suggested modifications: > > <MODIFICATION> > When registering a new value for an existing tel URI > parameter, the > following information MUST be provided: > > Parameter Name Reference > -------------- --------- > > Table 2: Registering an new value for an existing tel URI > parameter > > Note to RFC Editor: The token under the "Parameter Name" > column in > Table 2 MUST be present in one of the rows corresponding to the > "Parameter Name" column in Table 1, and furthermore, that > token MUST > have a value of "Yes" in the corresponding "Predefined > Values" column > of Table 1. > </MODIFICATION> > > >> As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [3], the registration > policy for > >> tel URI parameters shall be "Specification Required". > > > > Hmm. Thats not what the intro says. It says: > > > > The tel URI parameters and values for these parameters MUST be > > documented in a standards-track RFC in order to be > registered by IANA. > > > [...] > > "specification required" allows for informational and experimental > > documents. The text in the intro really seems to imply "standards > > action", defined in RFC 2434 as: > > > > Standards Action - Values are assigned only for Standards Track > > Since most of the boilerplate stuff for IANA registry was > lifted from rfc3969, by that yardstick, even rfc3969 is in error. > > In any case, for this I-D, I have changed the text to reflect > "Standards Action": > > <MODIFICATION> > > 4.2 Registration Policy for tel URI Parameters > > As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [3], the registration > policy for > tel URI parameters shall be "Standards Action". For the > purposes of > this registry, the parameter for which IANA registration > is requested > MUST be defined by a standards-track RFC. > > </MODIFICATION> > > Thanks. > > - vijay > > _______________________________________________ > Iptel mailing list > Iptel@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel > _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
- [Iptel] draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submitted Vijay K. Gurbani
- [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submitted Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submi… Vijay K. Gurbani
- RE: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submi… Michael Hammer (mhammer)
- Re: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submi… Vijay K. Gurbani
- RE: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submi… Michael Hammer (mhammer)
- Re: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submi… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submi… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submi… Vijay K. Gurbani