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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:47:39 EST

In a message dated 11/22/2002 8:19:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Thus, the important consideration is only "is this number unique without 
> a context"? Thus, a context would be needed if +1-800-something refers 
> to two logically different entities in Canada and the US. (Obviously, an 
> 800 number may end up in many different locations depending on the 
> source of the call, but that's not the problem.) I don't know if that's 
> possible. To put it more concretely: will the same 800# ever be assigned 
> to two different entities, as in
> 
> 1-800-123-4567 reaches PizzaHut if dialed in New York
> and
> 1-800-123-4567 reaches Domino's if dialed in New Jersey
> and
> 1-800-123-4567 reaches WeightWatchers if dialed in Canada
> 

[MAP] A long, long time ago in the history of telephony (about 20 years ago), 
Intra-state WATS numbers were indicated by the digit 2 in the 6th position 
(800-nn2-), so presumably the same number could be assigned in multiple 
places. (Ads would often say "In New York, dial 1-800-452-1234, elsewhere 
dial 1-800-678-1234.") I don't know if this is still possible, but it seems 
likely. There is no reason why the actual routing of any telephone number 
can't be dependent on the location of the originator. (911 certainly works 
this way.)

I believe the case above (a single number reaching different Pizza Huts 
depending on where you are) is possible. If so, it's not just a function of 
which state you're in. I wouldn't want the store in NYC to deliver a pizza to 
me in Albany:>)

I think this issue brings us back to the question of what the "context" is 
for. The current draft describes its use to "provide a unique identifier that 
lets a client know whether it can interpet the local number or not". It then 
states "It has not [sic] other meaning or function." The problem is that 
other implied uses seem to be to influence the routing of a call.

The "context" included in the tel:uri is really just an extra check that the 
receiver can use to verify that it should be able to understand the number 
when it is not a globally defined one like E.164. However, I would still 
believe that, in the proper case, all the routing that was done to get it 
there should be correct (and should not use "context"). In this case of 800 
numbers, the routing itself can not be dependent on an additional "context" 
that the originator puts with the number, which they think represents the 
intended destination. The originator doesn't know this. The "context" for 
routing is the orginator's location.

Now, if we want to solve the bigger problem of not knowing where the 
originator of a call is by requiring them to enter some information to 
identify where they are, that's another issue, but I don't think anyone would 
want to do that.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:58:51 -0500 (EST)

> depending on where you are) is possible

yes

Scott
_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel