Subject: Re: AW: [Iptel] comments on rfc2806bis - 800 numbers

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:08:03 EST

In a message dated 11/27/2002 4:23:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> By saying same number assigned in multiple areas, do you mean numbers 
> without country code prefixes?
> 

[MAP] I think there have been several different concepts mentioned related to 
free-phone (e.g. 800) numbers:

1. In the US (and Canada), 800 numbers have often been applicable for calls 
originating only from certain areas, i.e., only US, a group of states, a 
single state, etc. This (theoretically) allows the same number to be assigned 
in different areas to completely different users with completely separate 
routing. I suspect this is still allowed.

2. An 800 number (in the US/Canada) can be assigned which uses "Intelligent 
Network" capabilities with a data base lookup so that the actual routing is a 
function of the originator's location (i.e., calling party number). (Example: 
route to nearest Pizza Hut.)

3. The same 800 number may be allocated to the same company for use in 
multiple countries. I'm looking for examples. The use of the number depends 
on the location of the calling party. It is normally called only when in one 
of those countries (without dialing a Country Code). Dialing from outside the 
country, using the Country Code, is theoretically possible, if allowed by 
agreements between the countries.

4. The "International Freephone Service" uses the "800" in place of the 
Country Code followed by 8 digits, that is, the assigned "IFS" number is 
truly "global", however there is certainly still no guarantee that it can be 
called from everywhere in the globe. ITU-T only requires that it be used 
"between two or more countries". Use of these numbers requires that the user 
be located within the assigned countries.

Of course, all of these uses are based on knowing the originator's location 
(or more precisely, the location of the equipment handling the call set-up).

Mapping this to the Internet case where there is no knowledge of the location 
of the caller is a real challenge. I think that one reason for the "context" 
being applied with such "800" numbers in 2806bis was to get around this 
problem - that is - for the originator to indicate more information about 
their location or the desired destination.

For example, a user who is in US (or who doesn't even care where they are) 
wants to call an "800-234-567" number in Germany. They put in the "800" 
number and separately code the "49" country code for Germany in "context". 
They could just as well represent the desired number as +49-800-234-567  (One 
could apply the same reasoning to a regular number in the US and put in only 
the final 7 digits, and code +1 and area code in "context", but I believe we 
agreed not to allow that.)

Another example of the possible use of context: The user codes the 
destination +49-800-234-567 (full number) and puts their own location (e.g., 
+1-410) in "context, meaning where they are physically located (independent 
from their "identity"). The destination could use this "context" to decide 
whether or not it should handle the call. This is similar to the use of 
"context" when dealing with "private" numbers in which the originator codes 
their own, and the other end can use it as a check.

Another example of the use of "context" which is implied in the draft is the 
ability to codes multiple "context" values, for example, the originator codes 
the number as +49-800-234-567 and codes the "context" with both 49 for 
Germany and 44 for UK. While it is certainly possible for the same number to 
be assigned to the same company in both countries, it has never been clear to 
me what function (multiple contexts) this would serve. Would an 800 number 
valid in the entire US then require the "context" to include every possible 
area code?

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:26:37 -0800

Hi,

So far, everyone seems to agree that as long as numbers are unique, 
they don/t require the context parameter.  I don't think anything in 
your mail contradicts that. Comments inline.

thanks,
-rohan

On Friday, November 29, 2002, at 10:08 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> [MAP] I think there have been several different concepts mentioned 
> related to free-phone (e.g. 800) numbers:
>
> 1. In the US (and Canada), 800 numbers have often been applicable for 
> calls originating only from certain areas, i.e., only US, a group of 
> states, a single state, etc. This (theoretically) allows the same 
> number to be assigned in different areas to completely different users 
> with completely separate routing. I suspect this is still allowed.

Can someone provide a definitive answer on this question?  In my 
(fairly limited) experience, numbers which are assigned to a specific 
region play an error message, rather than being routed to orthogonal 
organizations.  If this is indeed the case, it is totally reasonable to 
refer to these numbers as ordinary tel:+1800nnnnnnn URIs with no 
additional context.  Reachability is not a concern for a URI, only 
uniqueness.

For example, most folks cannot reach: http://wwwin.cisco.com  even 
though it is a valid URI.

> 2. An 800 number (in the US/Canada) can be assigned which uses 
> "Intelligent Network" capabilities with a data base lookup so that the 
> actual routing is a function of the originator's location (i.e., 
> calling party number). (Example: route to nearest Pizza Hut.)

It is useful to use a URI to refer to such a number "in general", or to 
refer to a specific instance.  I think it is perfectly legitimate to 
publish both of the following URIs:

tel:+18002224357
tel:+18002224357;context=+1831452

the first is a URI for roadside assistance for the American Automobile 
Association (1-800-AAA-HELP for those stateside).  I can publish this 
URI on a web page with the disclaimer that it is only reachable in the 
US.  Even though it will reach different instances of AAA for different 
callers, it still refers to a specific thing (it is still unique)

The second refers to the the specific AAA call center that handles 
calls for my (unported) prefix.  I don't see much need for this usage, 
but I see no reason to prohibit its use either.

Please note also, that I can call some +1 800 numbers from outside 
North America.  I have called American Express from a random variety of 
countries in Europe and Asia by just dialing the equivalent of 
+18008014941.  This number is not only globally unique, but also 
reachable from a variety of countries outside any describable context.

> multiple countries. I'm looking for examples. The use of the number 
> depends on the location of the calling party. It is normally called 
> only when in one of those countries (without dialing a Country Code). 
> Dialing from outside the country, using the Country Code, is 
> theoretically possible, if allowed by agreements between the > countries.

we don't really care much about countries, we care about prefixes.  If 
someone has the same number in multiple prefixes, then they are free to 
publish as few or as many of these URIs as they would like.  They are 
all unique.

> 4. The "International Freephone Service" uses the "800" in place of 
> the Country Code followed by 8 digits, that is, the assigned "IFS" 
> number is truly "global", however there is certainly still no 
> guarantee that it can be called from everywhere in the globe. ITU-T 
> only requires that it be used "between two or more countries". Use of 
> these numbers requires that the user be located within the assigned 
> countries.

As long as +800xxxxxxxx is unique, then this is a totally valid URI.  
as I said

> Of course, all of these uses are based on knowing the originator's 
> location (or more precisely, the location of the equipment handling 
> the call set-up).
>
> Mapping this to the Internet case where there is no knowledge of the 
> location of the caller is a real challenge. I think that one reason 
> for the "context" being applied with such "800" numbers in 2806bis was 
> to get around this problem - that is - for the originator to indicate 
> more information about their location or the desired destination.
>
> For example, a user who is in US (or who doesn't even care where they 
> are) wants to call an "800-234-567" number in Germany. They put in the 
> "800" number and separately code the "49" country code for Germany in 
> "context". They could just as well represent the desired number as 
> +49-800-234-567  (One could apply the same reasoning to a regular 
> number in the US and put in only the final 7 digits, and code +1 and 
> area code in "context", but I believe we agreed not to allow that.)
>
> destination +49-800-234-567 (full number) and puts their own location 
> (e.g., +1-410) in "context, meaning where they are physically located 
> (independent from their "identity"). The destination could use this 
> "context" to decide whether or not it should handle the call. This is 
> similar to the use of "context" when dealing with "private" numbers in 
> which the originator codes their own, and the other end can use it as 
> a check.
>
> Another example of the use of "context" which is implied in the draft 
> is the ability to codes multiple "context" values, for example, the 
> originator codes the number as +49-800-234-567 and codes the "context" 
> with both 49 for Germany and 44 for UK. While it is certainly possible 
> for the same number to be assigned to the same company in both 
> countries, it has never been clear to me what function (multiple 
> contexts) this would serve. Would an 800 number valid in the entire US 
> then require the "context" to include every possible area code?
>
>
> Mike Pierce
> Artel