The tel URI for Telephone Numbers
draft-ietf-iptel-rfc2806bis-09
Yes
(Allison Mankin)
(Jon Peterson)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Thomas Narten)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-10)
Unknown
Question: Does this doc obsolete/replace 2806, Or is it just revising a piece of 2806, so it basically updates 2806? Whatever the answer, it should probably be mentioned in teh abstract.
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-10)
Unknown
Reviewed by Mark Allman, gen-ART
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-09)
Unknown
Please spell out IVR. It is only used once. The document does uses columbia.edu in places where example.com ought to be used. The use of quotes is very inconsistent in this document. I kept wondering if there was a reason, but I finally conclude that there is not any meaning to the various styles. Please pick one style and use it everywhere. The quoted string "tel" appears at least three different ways in various places: 1. The ``tel'' URI ... 2. The "tel" URI ... 3. The 'tel' URI ...
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-10)
Unknown
5.1.1: contradictory -- clarify last paragraph. (Why is there extra indentation?) When you say "cannot", do you mean "MUST NOT" or "SHOULD NOT"? 5.1.3: Why (backslash)# instead of # 5.1.5: Extra indentation
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-07)
Unknown
The document uses a number of telephone numbers which are not in the example sets (e.g. 555-1234, which is allocated according to http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/ form555MasterReport.do?method=display555MasterReport). I'm not sure what to do about that , though, as it would be very hard to give the range of uses while sticking to the relatively small number of allocations for examples (I know of UK and NANP allocations, but cannot readily suggest others). Do folks think a disclaimer of some kind is in order here, or should this just be left as-is?
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown