Re: [MMUSIC] E164 address type in both RFC 3108 and draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs

Hello Christer,

I think the last sentence: /"Usage of "E164" address type in conjunction 
with other network types may be defined elsewhere."/ could potentially 
be confusing. I think this sentence is referring to that the E164 
address defined by [SDP-CS] could be used elsewhere. Whereas the RFC3105 
usage of E164 is distinct from [SDP-CS].

I think that after our discussion regarding the IANA registration its 
clear that Address type is dependent on Network Type. So I would be 
included to remove the above sentence and just indicate that E164 
defined by [SDP-CS] is used exclusively for nettype PSTN.

You could add a note to the effect: "Note: RFC3105 also defines address 
type E164. This definition is distinct from the one defined by [SDP-CS] 
and shall not be used with nettype PSTN."

Regards, Christian

On 19/11/2013 5:17 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 11/18/13 9:31 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> RFC 3108 (SDP for ATM) defines an 'E164' address type value. When used,
>> the associated address value is "up to 15 decimal digits".
>>
>> Example: c=ATM E164 9738294382
>>
>> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-21 also defines an 'E164' address type value,
>> with a slightly different syntax for the associated address value:
>>
>> - an international E.164 number (prepended with a '+' sign); or
>> - the value "-", signifying that the address is unknown
>>
>> Now, the sdp-cs draft DOES say:
>>
>>          "Please note that the "E164" address type defined in this 
>> memo is
>>         exclusively defined to be used in conjunction with the "PSTN"
>> network
>>         type in accordance with [RFC4566].  Usage of "E164" address 
>> type in
>>         conjunction with other network types may be defined elsewhere."
>>
>> ...and, in 3108 the network type value is "ATM", so.
>>
>> I just wonder whether it would be useful to, in sdp-cs, give 3108 as an
>> example of where "E164" is defined for another network type, and with a
>> different syntax?
>
> I wouldn't object, but neither do I find it necessary to do this.
>
> I wasn't aware of 3108 when it was being standardized. I find its use 
> of "E164" perverted, since it explicitly allows non-E164 values to be 
> used, and doesn't even define how such numbers are to be interpreted.
>
> It should have used something other than "E164". But I guess it is too 
> late to "fix" that.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>