To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
"'enum@ietf.org'" <enum@ietf.org>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Bernie Hoeneisen <bhoeneis@switch.ch>
Date:
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:44:16 +0200 (CEST)
Content-ID:
<Pine.LNX.4.61.0409281323270.3503@machb>
In-Reply-To:
<5BEA6CDB196A4241B8BE129D309AA4AF040D84FD@vsvapostal8.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] New I/D: draft-hoeneisen-enum-validation-epp-00
Hi Scott! Thanks for your feedback! On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > OK, I had a chance to take a closer look. I noticed that you're using a > 31-character token for the E.164 number. Why is that? An E.164 number can > contain no more than 15 digits per E.164, so why allow a maximum of 31? For > what it's worth I used a type like this in the EPP contact mapping: The idea behind this was to leave it a Registry policy issue (or up to the validation method documentation), what format to use, in order to keep it as generic as possible. This would allow over-dialing, and characters such as "-", "(", ")" as seperators. Furthermore one could describe number ranges, e.g. "+41-44-26815xx", with this format. I do not have a strong opinion on which format to use for this. > Also, throughout the document s/März/March/ Ouuppps...! This is due to a bug in the "xml2rfc" package. It used my locale settings, i.e. the environment variable "LC_TIME=de_CH" although any output documents of the xml2rfc tool are in English. I have submitted a Bug Report and informed the Debian maintainer about this issue. I even got immediately a patch! However, this will be correct in the next revision. cheers, Bernie