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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:52:26 EST

In a message dated 11/19/2002 1:17:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> > National freephone numbers SHOULD be represented with a local prefix.
> 
> what is a local prefix? The text above defines global prefix and domain 
> name

Freephone numbers (e.g., 800 in the US) present a problem for this tel:uri 
which, IMHO, has not been resolved. While they can easily be represented in 
the format of a full E.164 number, they can normally only be dialed within 
some local context (usually a country). Some implications in the draft are 
that either the global of the local representation would be correct. (See 
statement that "All phone numbers MUST use the global form unless they cannot 
be represented as such." which would seem to contradict the above statement.)

It seems that it should be sufficient to say that any number which can be 
represented as a E.164 number MUST be represented this way. This would 
include all "800" numbers. And it needs to be made clear that the 
representation is unrelated to where it can be reached from (matter for 
local/national policy). Therefore, a Freephone number would never have a 
"local prefix" or a "local-anything". It never requires a "context" to be 
understood.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:59:33 -0500

At the risk of wading in from left field...

the unfortunate fact that E.164 numbers in the +1-800 domain cannot be 
successfully reached from anywhere does not in any way affect their 
validity as global tel: URL numbers.

All we can guarantee for such numbers is that they are GLOBALLY 
UNAMBIGUOUS, which means that they either reach the indended global 
destination or they fail. There is no way we can (or should) legislate 
which cases are allowed fail or disallow numbers which fail when tried from 
the "wrong" source domain.

dave.

--On Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:52 PM -0500 [email-masked] wrote:

> Freephone numbers (e.g., 800 in the US) present a problem for this
> tel:uri which, IMHO, has not been resolved. While they can easily be
> represented in the format of a full E.164 number, they can normally only
> be dialed within some local context (usually a country). Some
> implications in the draft are that either the global of the local
> representation would be correct. (See statement that "All phone numbers
> MUST use the global form unless they cannot be represented as such."
> which would seem to contradict the above statement.)
>

------------------------
David R. Oran
Cisco Systems
7 Ladyslipper Lane
Acton, MA 01720
Office: +1 978 264 2048
VoIP: +1 408 571 4576
Email: [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel