Subject: [Iptel] IANA Registry Draft

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:49:11 -0700

If we decide we are going to have a registry (and Richard gave some good
reasons), we need to define it. In the name of expediting this, I slammed
together a draft. Until it shows up in the drafts directory, you can find it
at 

http://scm.sipfoundry.org/rep/ietf-drafts/fluffy/draft-jennings-iptel-tel-re
g-00.html
 
or ASCII version at

http://scm.sipfoundry.org/rep/ietf-drafts/fluffy/draft-jennings-iptel-tel-re
g-00.txt

I apologize if my email mangled the URL.

Please note one important item. This draft normatively depends on the
existing WG drafts, not the other way around.

Cullen (not as chair)

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:03:21 -0500

> http://scm.sipfoundry.org/rep/ietf-drafts/fluffy/draft-jennings-iptel-tel-re

This is a fine start. That last essential piece of the puzzle.

I know this is a place holder but it will need all the parameters from 
James Yu's draft tel-np-07 as well.

-- 

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:37:00 +0000

Hi Cullen, folks,
  As Richard says, this is the missing piece.
Questions on first reading:
   -  Do parameter authors need a hint that a required IANA  
considerations section
      is there to spell out exactly what is to be registered and  
under which registry?
      (i.e. don't make IANA hunt around in the document, as they  
COULD miss it :)
   -  enumdi has no pre-defined values, as it can be considered to  
have an implicit
      (or binary) value of "yes/done". Should the pre-defined table  
values be:
       "yes/no/implicit binary"?

Good stuff.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 30 Oct 2005, at 22:03, Richard Shockey wrote:

>> at http://scm.sipfoundry.org/rep/ietf-drafts/fluffy/draft-jennings- 
>> iptel-tel-re
>> g-00.html
>>
>
>
> I know this is a place holder but it will need all the parameters  
> from James Yu's draft tel-np-07 as well.
>
>
>>  or ASCII version at

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:27:34 -0800

> James Yu's draft tel-np-07 as well.

I think I got 

rn        
rn-context        
cic               
cic-context   

Any others I need from tel-np-07?

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:37:28 -0800

Good points - inline ....

>       (i.e. don't make IANA hunt around in the document, as they

Sounds like good idea - Are you thinking that I should have a section that
tell authors of future document that they should make an a IANA
Consideration section that has text that fills out a certain template and
show what that template looks like. I was trying to to that where I put

> New tel URI parameters and new parameter values are registered by the IANA.
> When registering a new tel parameter or a new value for a parameter, the
> following information MUST be provided.
> 
> Name of the parameter.
> Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined values.
> Reference to the RFC defining the parameter and to any RFC that defines new
> values for the parameter. References to RFCs defining parameter values appear
> in double brackets in the registry.

But looks like I should have been more explicit. (One can never be too
explicit with IANA stuff :-)

Thoughts on how to fix?

>        "yes/no/implicit binary"?

I see what you are saying - I realized I did not write what I meant to
write. If I changed the
 Whether the parameter only accepts a set of predefined value"  -> " Whether
the parameter accepts a value". That is what I meant to say - then the
values I have for yes/no would be correct. Would it be ok to change to this
and not worry about the yes/no/implicit - I'm trying to keep this draft dead
simple. 

I would also change the para with

" So, the tel URI parameter registry contains a column that indicates
whether or not each parameter only accepts a set of predefined values.
Implementers of parameters with a "yes" in that column need to find all the
valid parameter values in the RFCs provided as references."

to something like 

So, the tel URI parameter registry contains a column that indicates whether
or not each parameter accepts values. Implementers of parameters with a
"yes" in that column need to find all the valid parameter values in the RFCs
provided as references.