Subject: [Enum] REMINDER - LAST CALL draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-06.txt

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 13:18:24 -0400

The purpose of a working group Last Call is in the style of "speak now or
forever hold your peace" in case there are fundamental objections which have
not gotten previous or adequate discussion, or minor errors which need
correction.

The 2 week Last Call will end on May 28 at 12PM EST

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +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>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:26:54 +0200

Dear All

RFC 2916bis looks OK - most of my earlier comments on e-mail 23 of April
have been fixed - I just have some small problem with the text at the end of
clause 2 and first paragraph in 2.1.

It´s about the expresion "non-E.164 numbers" and "telephone numbers that are
not part of the E.164 namespace".

If I understood MMs comments on e-mail 29 of April I suggest to change the
text as follows:

- second last sentence in second paragraph in 2 - "Because of this, there is
the risk that collisions between E.164 number and non-E.164 numbers (i.e.
telephone numbers that not strictly are E.164 numbers because they are not
reachable from other countries but they are included in the national
numbering plan that is in accordance with the ITU-T Recommendation E.164)
can occur.

- 2.1 last sentence - change the end to ".... in order to distinguish it
from other telephone numbers that are not part of the E.164 namespace (the
E.164 namespace includes only telephone numbers (i.e. E.164 numbers) that
are in accordance with the rules of ITU-T Recommendation E.164).

Sincerely

Joakim Strålmark
Swedish Administration
Tel. +46 8 678 55 69
E-mail [email-masked]

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Richard Shockey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Skickat: den 23 maj 2003 19:18
Till: [email-masked]
Kopia: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Ämne: [Enum] REMINDER - LAST CALL draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-06.txt

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives NeuStar
Inc.

---

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 20:04:02 -0400

As per the conclusions of earlier discussions in this WG, I don't think it
is incumbent upon us to define "E.164 numbers" or do anything other than
reference the ITU-T standard. I think the clarification suggested by Mr.
Stasny, to refer to "International Public Telecommunication Numbers in the
international format, called within this document E.164 numbers", removed
any ambiguity about how we used the term "E.164 numbers" (this appears as
the first sentence of section 1). The modifications proposed below seem to
be to similar effect, but Mr. Stasny's text, which has already been
incorporated, is in my opinion stronger and clearer.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 7:27 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: SV: [Enum] REMINDER - LAST CALL
> draft-ietf-enum-rfc2916bis-06.txt
> 
> 
> Dear All
>

---

From: "Enzmann, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 10:12:54 -0400

Ditto this

-----Original Message-----
From: Peterson, Jon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 8:04 PM
To: [email-masked]'; Shockey, Richard; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Enum] REMINDER - LAST CALL

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.