Re: [stir] Renaming E164Number

That addressed my main concern.

I have qualms about dial strings, but
will let this play out to see where it goes.

________________________________
Michael Hammer
michael.hammer@yaanatech.com
+1 408 202 9291

© 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:stir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 4:55 PM
To: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [stir] Renaming E164Number

Ooops.  I put the (2..MAX) in the wrong spot.

Also, I think that the TNEntry for spa should not be a list since TNAuthorizationList can contain as many spa entries as desired.

My revised suggestion is:

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

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

ServiceProviderCode ::= IA5String

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

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

Russ

> On Apr 14, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> 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" <michael.hammer@yaanatech.com>
>> 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
>>> michael.hammer@yaanatech.com
>>> +1 408 202 9291
>>>
>>> © 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:stir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peterson, Jon
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:19 AM
>>> To: Chris Wendt <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>
>>> Cc: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>; Russ Housley
>>> <housley@vigilsec.com>; Martin C Dolly <md3135@att.com>
>>> 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
>>>> <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>
>>>> 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 <housley@vigilsec.com> 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 <md3135@att.com> 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:stir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sean
>>>>>> Turner
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:04 PM
>>>>>> To: stir@ietf.org
>>>>>> 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_s
>>>>>> tirwg_
>>>>>> certificates_issues_4&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCS
>>>>>> SQhCmp
>>>>>> w7ItG0r2g&m=UhVA_2O-z5DN-Bdom_WhPcD_-4nWww1SYGSyTVjFPBA&s=DXAZMIa
>>>>>> 2681lT 5v97AAp36rnY1CfZpJifa2PbpimkwQ&e= and here's the PR
>>>>>> showing the resulting change:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_s
>>>>>> tirwg_
>>>>>> certificates_pull_5&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQ
>>>>>> hCmpw7
>>>>>> ItG0r2g&m=UhVA_2O-z5DN-Bdom_WhPcD_-4nWww1SYGSyTVjFPBA&s=72Ta2iS7y
>>>>>> Ncl-FC
>>>>>> R5HdvXB5njEfC12k0kLz7QgCp87g&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do people think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> spt
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> stir mailing list
>>>>>> stir@ietf.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org
>>>>>> _mailm
>>>>>> an_listinfo_stir&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQhCm
>>>>>> pw7ItG
>>>>>> 0r2g&m=UhVA_2O-z5DN-Bdom_WhPcD_-4nWww1SYGSyTVjFPBA&s=NSOnsQJ832Jf
>>>>>> PXkcoe
>>>>>> qf68PvPzxIr21SPbpPP4dg270&e=
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> stir mailing list
>>>>>> stir@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> stir mailing list
>>>>> stir@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> stir mailing list
>>>> stir@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> stir mailing list
>>> stir@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> stir mailing list
>> stir@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>

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