Number Portability Parameters for the "tel" URI
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
(Cullen Jennings) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
Comment (2006-04-26 for -)
From Gen-ART review by Ron Bonica: - In Section 5, are you sure that you want to refer to the two database access as "first" and "second"? Would words like "originating network" and "serving network" be more descriptive? (This is a question, not a comment?) - In Section 5.1, you talk about "cic" and "rn" information that is "not useful". A few paragraphs later, you talk about what to do if the "cic" represents the local network or the "rn" represents the local node. I assume that this is what you mean by "not useful". If so, would the word "local" be more descriptive than "not useful"? (Again, just a question).
(Lisa Dusseault) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
A few minor comments on the ABNF: - The construct *1(foo) is confusing; you could use [foo] instead. - As Magnus notes, 1*phonedigit-hex could be empty since visual-seperator is optional. It's unclear to me why some of the options (rn, npdi, cic) don't include the semicolon and are expressed as *1(foo), but some (rn-context and cic-context) do include the semicolon and are expressed as requred. I think it would be more clear if each of the optional items matched the "parameter" production of the 3966 ABNF.
(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection
A brief description of "freephone" as term of art may be useful on its first appearance. The examples are clear enough from the U.S. perspective, but a quick "this is a called-party pays number" intro might help.
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
(Mark Townsley) No Objection
Magnus Westerlund (was Discuss) No Objection
IANA should update the tel URI pointer in it registry to RFC 3966