Re: [stir] Questions about stir-certificates

I would note that I did identify this issue with open numbering plans 
(i.e. that the text seemed to be limited to fixed length numbering 
plans) at least 9 months ago and it was ignored, and I did not follow up 
on it. The issue will exist in both Germany and Austria.

I note Martin has used the number 15 below, which is the length given in 
the internet-draft, but I could not find anything in the draft defining 
which format of telephone number is used. The 15 is only correct if 
prefixes are not included. If prefixes are included, then that could add 
a further 1, 2 or possibly even 3 digits.

So can someone point me to text that identifies the preferred format of 
telephone number.

Keith

On 09-Nov-17 9:25 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2017, at 00:40, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/1/17 12:06 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> What is supposed to be done for variable length numbering schemes?
>>> I figure that you would simply have multiple ranges, one for each
>>> possible length.  That might mean 15 ranges in the worst case, but
>>> it's probably better than any alternative I can think of.
>> That sounds unpleasant.
>>
>> How about describing the range using a RE, or something similar to an RE restricted to digits?
>>
> Honestly, I am afraid that defining some kind of RE/regex is going to run into issues with the IESG.  I’ll synch with Jon and try to figure out what we can do here to make this easier on the implementer.
>
> spt
>
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir