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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf