Re: [stir] Renaming E164Number

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Suggestion…

OLD w/ the addition of SIZE to TelephoneNumberRange:

     TNAuthorizationList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF TNEntry

     TNEntry ::= CHOICE {
       spc   [0] ServiceProviderCodeList,
       range [1] TelephoneNumberRange,
       one       E164Number }

     ServiceProviderCodeList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..3) OF IA5String

     TelephoneNumberRange ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (2..MAX) {
       start E164Number,
       count INTEGER  }

     E164Number ::= IA5String (SIZE (1..15)) (FROM ("0123456789#*”))

NEW:

     TNAuthorizationList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF TNEntry

     TNEntry ::= CHOICE {
       spc   [0] ServiceProviderCodeList,
       range [1] TelephoneNumberRange,
       one       TelephoneNumber }

     ServiceProviderCodeList ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..3) OF IA5String

     TelephoneNumberRange ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (2..MAX) {
       start TelephoneNumber,
       count INTEGER  }

     TelephoneNumber ::= IA5String (SIZE (1..15)) (FROM ("0123456789#*”))

If this is acceptable, then I ask the authors to make the changes and post an updated I-D.

Russ


> On Apr 14, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Peterson, Jon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> No mutual understanding of the semantics is required by the authentication
> and verification services here - though in practice, calls that are routed
> to destinations via a dial string with a * or # in it should end up going
> to fairly specialized pieces of equipment, and I'm actually less worried
> about canonicalization and so on being an issue for special dial strings
> like this than I am for ordinary E.164 numbers. We're not placing any
> restrictions on where in the dial string those non-numeric characters
> might appear, as there doesn't seem to be anything gained by doing so
> except introducing complexity.
> 
> In terms of what to call it, if we can't agree on Freddie, I do think TN
> or something similarly generic is appropriate. If we already have a group
> field for TelphoneNumberRange, why wouldn't the base element be
> TelephoneNumber? Or if we'd be overloading some existing registered name
> by using that, like TelNum or something?
> 
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.
> 
> On 4/14/17, 10:56 AM, "Michael Hammer" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Jon,
>> 
>> Can the * and # be used arbitrarily anywhere in the string?
>> 
>> Is there some semantic to those characters that needs
>> to be understood by both the sender and receiver?
>> 
>> Or does it not matter because the recipient only treats it as an opaque
>> string?
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> Michael Hammer
>> [e-mail]
>> [phone]
>> 
>> © 2016 Yaana Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Email
>> confidentiality notice. This message is private and confidential. If you
>> have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from
>> your system.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: stir [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Peterson, Jon
>> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:19 AM
>> To: Chris Wendt <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: IETF STIR Mail List <[e-mail]>; Russ Housley
>> <[e-mail]>; Martin C Dolly <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [stir] Renaming E164Number
>> 
>> Agreed. We are allowing these non-numeric characters in certs to support
>> a corner case that might arise in the future. Let's not agonize over what
>> to call the field.
>> 
>> Jon Peterson
>> Neustar, Inc.
>> 
>>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Chris Wendt <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Can we just call it telephoneNumber?  I think we are mostly arguing
>>> name here, right?
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Martin:
>>>> 
>>>> E.164 only allows digits.  What should we call a number that include
>>>> digits and * and #?
>>>> 
>>>> Russ
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 12, 2017, at 7:13 PM, DOLLY, MARTIN C <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sean,
>>>>> 
>>>>> DTMF has no end to end meaning for routing, but is meaningful between
>>>>> the UE and the SP processing those symbols.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Therefore, I do not see this as an issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Martin
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: stir [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sean Turner
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:04 PM
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: [stir] Renaming E164Number
>>>>> 
>>>>> In another thread I remember seeing a suggestion to rename E164Number
>>>>> to DTMFNumber.  I created an issue:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_stirwg_
>>>>> certificates_issues_4&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQhCmp
>>>>> w7ItG0r2g&m=UhVA_2O-z5DN-Bdom_WhPcD_-4nWww1SYGSyTVjFPBA&s=DXAZMIa2681lT
>>>>> 5v97AAp36rnY1CfZpJifa2PbpimkwQ&e=
>>>>> and here's the PR showing the resulting change:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_stirwg_
>>>>> certificates_pull_5&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQhCmpw7
>>>>> ItG0r2g&m=UhVA_2O-z5DN-Bdom_WhPcD_-4nWww1SYGSyTVjFPBA&s=72Ta2iS7yNcl-FC
>>>>> R5HdvXB5njEfC12k0kLz7QgCp87g&e=
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do people think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> spt
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> stir mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailm
>>>>> an_listinfo_stir&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQhCmpw7ItG
>>>>> 0r2g&m=UhVA_2O-z5DN-Bdom_WhPcD_-4nWww1SYGSyTVjFPBA&s=NSOnsQJ832JfPXkcoe
>>>>> qf68PvPzxIr21SPbpPP4dg270&e=
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> stir mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> stir mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> stir mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> stir mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
> 
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir