Subject: [Enum] Re: [Geopriv] ENUM input request

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:01:56 -0500

[ adding the ENUM wg to this thread since this is mostly about their  
work ]

On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> These things need to be localized.  Just like language settings,  
> each field would have a name that is meaningful to the user.  A  
> fair number of fields wouldn't even appear.

I think the ENUM working group needs to define the use case a little  
more.  Are we talking about users from Japan submitting validation  
tokens to Austria?  Or is it just users in Austria submitting tokens  
to the Austrian powers-that-be?

If the validation is within one border, doing the local- 
 >international->local translation seems to be two steps too many.

Mechanically, there are two answers.

1) Define a separate schema for each local form.
2) Define a profile for PIDF-LO:civicLoc for each local form.

The first seems to be something that usually requires a Standards  
Track RFC.  The second seems to be something that could easily be  
accomplished with an Informational RFC or perhaps an IANA registry.

-andy

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