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

I think I prefer one table because it would ensure that table 1 and 2 never
conflicted. 

On 2/9/06 7:44 AM, "Michael Hammer (mhammer)" <mhammer@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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