At 10:13 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
James M. Polk wrote:
In reviewing the pidf-lo-02 and the civil-02 IDs, I have discovered minor
inconsistencies.
Please note that the labels in the column 'NENA' refer to the NENA 02-010
data element labels. Neither FLR or PC are used there, as far as I can
tell. FLR is not defined there at all and PC is called ZIP.
hmmmm - inconsistencies should be avoided if known (therefore - see below)
I've added a separate column to the civil-02 table, labeled PIDF, to make
the correspondence explicit.
this is good for the civil ID, but doesn't address what the pidf-lo ID is
stating (which you shouldn't be solving)
I believe the two charts should be consistent to each other, with the
civil-02 ID being the one that's less complete, it should have the
appropriate text added.
They definitely should be. A separate, but related issue, is whether the
language information contained in the civil-02 draft should also appear in
PIDF-LO.
I agree it is related. Perhaps the pidf-lo document should only reference
the civil doc for the chart? In other words, have the civil ID be the
creator of the chart, and not have it in both documents (fearing
inconsistency), but have the pidf-lo document reference *to* the chart in
the civil doc.
I know this is not necessarily optimal, but this is the last week to catch
this before IETF LC in the pidf-lo doc is completed, so there is time to
address it now.
cheers,
James
*******************
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
cheers,
James
*******************
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf