Subject: Minor nits in DLUR Spec.

From: "jim (j.) cobban" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 15:15:00 -0400

On page 8-3 of DLUR-6 in section 8.1.4 the first sentence refers to "the SLU
name specified in the NS header".  A BIND is not an NS RU so it does not have
an NS header.  

In appendix D, before this is published could we fix up the unresolved
references to header RUSPARS and table CV?

On page D-26 in the description of subfield X'93' the destination dial
address should permit up to 15 digits for E.163 and 17 digits for E.164.
Those are limits dictated by the international standards, and we should not
arbitrarily ignore them.  This is my only substantive concern.