[Iptel] draft-ietf-iptel-reg-05

"Yu, James" <james.yu@neustar.biz> Fri, 16 May 2008 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <iptel-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iptel-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-iptel-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E943A6883; Fri, 16 May 2008 02:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: iptel@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iptel@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA2928C159 for <iptel@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 May 2008 02:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hfFuNNaTu-c5 for <iptel@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 May 2008 02:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from neustar.com (ns7.neustar.com [156.154.24.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFD63A6835 for <iptel@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 May 2008 02:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; d=neustar.biz; s=neustarbiz; c=simple/simple; q=dns; t=1210930257; x=1211016657; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-class:Content-Type; b=QkS8VD4Rw0BMVDrkArc2ruyTpvuXRaBQIr3M44AUI++YNSHpB/Vu+rhgpluY7xKUTWJFc1o5N59pP9 gm98diCw==
Received: from ([10.31.13.31]) by chihiron1.nc.neustar.com with ESMTP id 5202942.6806951; Fri, 16 May 2008 05:30:52 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 05:30:50 -0400
Message-ID: <C6105D088233254CA462CEE2B399CD7101FACEEF@STNTEXCH12.cis.neustar.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-iptel-reg-05
thread-index: Aci3N4eean5zXUe1SQOMMa0A83BfjQ==
From: "Yu, James" <james.yu@neustar.biz>
To: fluffy@cisco.com, vkg@alcatel-lucent.com
Cc: iptel@ietf.org
Subject: [Iptel] draft-ietf-iptel-reg-05
X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Telephony <iptel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/iptel>
List-Post: <mailto:iptel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1178781657=="
Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org

Cullen, Vijay,

I was checking your I-D and RFC 3969 (for sip parameter registration) and found that the "Yes/No" assignments in this I-D's "Predefined Values" column is different from those in RFC 3969.

In RFC 3969, for example, "ttl" has value "No" because that parameter does not have any "registered" value, although it can contain a value to indicate TTL length. 

In your I-D, the assaignments of "Yes" or "No" for the "Predefined Values" column are based on if the parameter is a flag or not.

Since the purpose of the I-D is to register "values" to avoid duplicated assignments, any tel URI parameter that does not require registration of predefined value(s) should be assigned "No" in Table 1.

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