Re: [MMUSIC] E.164 and visual separators in draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 11/15/12 4:06 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Flemming, Paul, Keith, and all,
>
> When going through
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-13.txt for
> publication, Flemming had a comment on the format of global telephone
> numbers.
>
> The draft currently says in Section 5.2.1:
>
>    This memo exclusively uses the international representation of E.164
>
>     numbers, i.e., those initiated with a '+' sign.  The syntax (see
>
>     Section 5.7) refers to the representation of a 'global-number'
>
>     construction already specified in RFC 3966 [RFC3966].  This
>
>     representation requires the presence of the '+' sign.  Additionally,
>
>     this representation allows for the presence of one or more 'visual-
>
>     separator' constructions.  Implementations confirming to this
>
>     specification and using the "E164" address type together with the
>
>     "PSTN" network type MUST only use international E.164, i.e., those
>
>     starting with a '+' sign and SHOULD NOT use visual-separators.
>
> This was discussed earlier on the list, see
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg09630.html
>
> Flemming’s comment was that referencing to RFC3966 but saying that the
> syntax is invalid because we only use parts of it is not a good idea.
>
> The question is, could we just refer to RFC3966 and allow visual
> separators?
>
> In my understanding the tradeoff is between slightly increased
> complexity in parser implementation versus being clear on the syntax. I
> would be inclined to prefer the latter.

My personal preference is, like yours, to go with 3966 and permit 
separators. IIRC the reason for text saying not to use separators was 
that some others were opposed to having them. (Early versions of the 
draft allowed only digits and didn't refer to 3966.)

	Thanks,
	Paul