IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submitted

"Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <mhammer@cisco.com> Thu, 09 February 2006 15:44 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 1F7DyT-0008S8-KV; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:44:49 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7DyS-0008Rd-J3 for iptel@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:44:48 -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 KAA02854 for <iptel@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:43:05 -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 1F7EBG-0004SR-PH for iptel@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:58:04 -0500
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2006 07:44:38 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k19FibKV013303; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 07:44:37 -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 10:44:36 -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 10:44:35 -0500
Message-ID: <072C5B76F7CEAB488172C6F64B30B5E3010FA25B@xmb-rtp-20b.amer.cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submitted
Thread-Index: AcYtjNdKVETpwT9mTJCsQA9Tr9U2lAAAqXpg
From: "Michael Hammer (mhammer)" <mhammer@cisco.com>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@lucent.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2006 15:44:36.0935 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB1B7570:01C62D8F]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
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

This overly bureaucratic and redundant, adding work to the IANA person
and adding clutter for the IANA reader.  I would suggest a single table.

Mike 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:vkg@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:24 AM
> To: Michael Hammer (mhammer)
> Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg (jdrosen); IETF IPTEL WG; Cullen 
> Jennings (fluffy)
> Subject: Re: [Iptel] Re: draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-00 submitted
> 
> Michael Hammer (mhammer) wrote:
> > 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: Indeed, Table 2 is a subset.  But it provides a quick 
> visual summary on which tel URI parameters have been updated 
> to include new values.  Plus, it imposes a cross-check to 
> IANA registry editor while registering new values for 
> existing URI parameters (only those parameters can have new 
> values where the Table 1[param name, predefined value] == "Yes").
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - vijay
> 

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email