Re: [PEPPERMINT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-drinks-cons-rqts-00.txt

 Some initial comments re this draft:
1. Section 3.1 Index/Key Data states that "for lookup information about
the most specific prefix will be returned." While this might be
desirable in some cases, I could image others where a larger set of
records might be desired. It also seems out of scope for DRINKS since it
speaks to retrieval rather than provisioning.
2. I'm troubled by the "first hop" "last hop" provider terminology in
Section 3.2. The way it is used in this section seems to imply that
there is some VSP closer to the end user than the VSP assigned the
number prefix. This *might* be under some circumstances, e.g., where a
non-facilities based provider obtains its numbers through wholesale, but
is not the most general case. If multiple VSP records are allowed then
it would seem some means of identifying which is which is required.
3. w/r/t number portability info (Section 3.2) carrier code is only one
type of NP info employed in the PSTN. Some more general terminology
should be employed.
4. Section 4 states that routing information is out of scope of the
registry provisioning problem. I'm not sure I agree.
In some arrangements routing information might well be expected to come
from a Registry and so need to be provisioned. I believe a number of
existing private registries provide routing information today. The
information *might* be relatively dynamic but it might not. Perhaps I
misunderstand how the term "routing information" is intended here.

Penn Pfautz
AT&T National Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
PEPPERMINT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint