From extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Thu Aug 1 09:11:31 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29254 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g71DCd208458 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:12:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:12:40 -0400 Message-Id: <200208011312.g71DCd208458@share.research.bell-labs.com> Subject: lists.bell-labs.com mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@lists.bell-labs.com To: iptel-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes X-Ack: no Sender: extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: extest-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: extest@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your lists.bell-labs.com mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, iptel-request@lists.bell-labs.com) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@lists.bell-labs.com. Thanks! Passwords for iptel-archive@lists.ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- iptel@lists.bell-labs.com nexaew http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/options/iptel/iptel-archive%40lists.ietf.org From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Mon Aug 5 18:47:53 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06342 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:47:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g75MdB207138; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:39:11 -0400 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g75Maj207109 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:36:45 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g75MajLI017200 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 4FC49443A9; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE094439E for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g75M7Vk32261 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grimy.research.bell-labs.com ([204.178.16.57]) by dusty; Mon Aug 5 18:07:15 EDT 2002 Received: from mail1.telekom.de ([62.225.183.235]) by grimy; Mon Aug 5 11:32:36 EDT 2002 Received: from g9jbr.mgb01.telekom.de by G8SBV.dmz.telekom.de with ESMTP for iptel@lists.bell-labs.com; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:19:37 +0200 Received: by G9JBR.mgb01.telekom.de with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:19:36 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Alexeitsev, D" To: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:19:27 +0200 Hello All Why does the tel: URI has no definition of the whole number (something like address-signal), but the separated phonedigits? So it could be something like this: subscriber = global-number / local-number global-number = global-number-part [isdn-subaddress] global-number-part = "+" address-signal local-number = local-number-part [isdn-subaddress] [context] local-number-part = address-signal address-signal = 1*phonedigit Greetings, Denis Alexeitsev _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Aug 6 05:20:32 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00222 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 05:20:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g769DU210514; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 05:13:30 -0400 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g769A1210481 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 05:10:01 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g769A1LI025493 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 05:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id AC3CB443A2; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 04:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5C44439D for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 04:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g768EAo50958 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 04:14:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]) by dusty; Tue Aug 6 04:13:53 EDT 2002 Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by goliath.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g768DIu28053; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:13:18 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mail-y.mchp.siemens.de (mail-y.mchp.siemens.de [139.23.203.56]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g768DHW19075; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:13:17 +0200 (MEST) Received: from cs.columbia.edu (mhpa6v8c [139.23.202.84]) by mail-y.mchp.siemens.de with ESMTP id g768DHcH002194; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:13:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3D4F84DE.8070903@cs.columbia.edu> From: Henning Schulzrinne Organization: Columbia University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020721 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Alexeitsev, D" Cc: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 04:12:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm not sure what draft you're referring to. draft-antti-rfc2806bis-05 has the following definition; I agree that 1*phonedigit could be replaced by a term. Do you see any particular reason for doing so? telephone-uri = "tel:" subscriber *param subscriber = global-number / local-number global-number = global-number-part [isdn-subaddress] global-number-part = "+" 1*phonedigit local-number = local-number-part [isdn-subaddress] [context] local-number-part = 1*phonedigit isdn-subaddress = ";isub=" 1*uric context = ";phone-context=" descriptor *("," descriptor) Alexeitsev, D wrote: > Hello All > > Why does the tel: URI has no definition of the whole number > (something like address-signal), but the separated phonedigits? So it > could be something like this: > > subscriber = global-number / local-number global-number > = global-number-part [isdn-subaddress] global-number-part = "+" > address-signal local-number = local-number-part > [isdn-subaddress] [context] local-number-part = address-signal > address-signal = 1*phonedigit > > Greetings, Denis Alexeitsev > > > _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list > IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com > http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Aug 6 05:42:33 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00844 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 05:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g769a2210661; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 05:36:02 -0400 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g769A6210493 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 05:10:06 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g769A6LI025501 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 05:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 97B4E443A4; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 04:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701D64439D for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 04:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g768oZo52855 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 04:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.telekom.de ([62.225.183.235]) by dusty; Tue Aug 6 04:50:18 EDT 2002 Received: from g9jbr.mgb01.telekom.de by G8SBV.dmz.telekom.de with ESMTP; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:50:31 +0200 Received: by G9JBR.mgb01.telekom.de with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:50:30 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Alexeitsev, D" To: hgs@cs.columbia.edu Cc: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:50:30 +0200 Thanks for the comment >I'm not sure what draft you're referring to. draft-antti-rfc2806bis-05 >has the following definition; I agree that 1*phonedigit could be >replaced by a term. Do you see any particular reason for doing so? I was looking at the draft-antti-rfc2806bis-04, but after a short comparation it has no difference concerning the definition of global-number-part and local-number-part. The reason why I asked it was my confusion about how to reference the number itself. The application of this reference was the interworking between the CalledPartyNumber parameter in ISUP and the subscriber component of tel: URI. The mapping I got for the number information itself was: Address Signal = 1*phonedigit This seemed to me somehow confusing as the number information has only the definition of format but not a name. Btw the "+" sign could be named somehow as well so it would give the reference to distinguish the international and the national number formats. Greetings, Denis Alexeitsev _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Aug 6 14:11:40 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21827 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76Hjj213630; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:45:45 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76Hg3213607 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:42:04 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g76He2uB063767 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:40:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id A7F5D4439E; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:41:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C154439D for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:41:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g76Hftk23389 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]) by dusty; Tue Aug 6 13:41:38 EDT 2002 Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by goliath.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76Hfp515510; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:41:51 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mail-y.mchp.siemens.de (mail-y.mchp.siemens.de [139.23.203.56]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76Hfp121829; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:41:51 +0200 (MEST) Received: from cs.columbia.edu (mhpa6v8c [139.23.202.84]) by mail-y.mchp.siemens.de with ESMTP id g76HfpcH010099; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:41:51 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3D500A1F.1080805@cs.columbia.edu> From: Henning Schulzrinne Organization: Columbia University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020721 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Alexeitsev, D" Cc: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:40:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I will remove local-number-part, which is also 1*phonedigit, and just call it phone-number. I don't see the need to label "+" - you can just as well refer to it literally. Alexeitsev, D wrote: > Thanks for the comment > > >> I'm not sure what draft you're referring to. >> draft-antti-rfc2806bis-05 has the following definition; I agree >> that 1*phonedigit could be replaced by a term. Do you see any >> particular reason for doing so? > > > > I was looking at the draft-antti-rfc2806bis-04, but after a short > comparation it has no difference concerning the definition of > global-number-part and local-number-part. > > The reason why I asked it was my confusion about how to reference the > number itself. The application of this reference was the interworking > between the CalledPartyNumber parameter in ISUP and the subscriber > component of tel: URI. The mapping I got for the number information > itself was: > > Address Signal = 1*phonedigit > > This seemed to me somehow confusing as the number information has > only the definition of format but not a name. > > Btw the "+" sign could be named somehow as well so it would give the > reference to distinguish the international and the national number > formats. > > Greetings, Denis Alexeitsev > _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Tue Aug 6 17:48:59 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00879 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76Lcl215334; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:38:47 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (ns1.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76LZv215309 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:35:57 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g76LXtuB067165 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:33:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 955764439E; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681A14439D for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g76LZpk46798 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:35:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com ([161.44.11.97]) by dusty; Tue Aug 6 17:35:34 EDT 2002 Received: from cia.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g76LZaeW025005; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:35:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHAMMER-W2K.cisco.com (hrn2-dhcp-161-44-87-145.cisco.com [161.44.87.145]) by cia.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ABB36254; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> X-Sender: mhammer@cia.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: Henning Schulzrinne From: Michael Hammer Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI Cc: "Alexeitsev, D" , iptel@lists.bell-labs.com In-Reply-To: <3D500A1F.1080805@cs.columbia.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:35:31 -0400 Going from memory, one time when I looked into this, there was a difference between global and local numbers in their use of over-decadic digits. Local allowed them, global did not. I would have to chase down the reference. Is this saying that over-decadic can be used in global or that local digits can now not be over-decadic. Mike At 01:40 PM 8/6/2002 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: >I will remove local-number-part, which is also 1*phonedigit, and just >call it phone-number. I don't see the need to label "+" - you can just as >well refer to it literally. > >Alexeitsev, D wrote: > > Thanks for the comment > > > > > >> I'm not sure what draft you're referring to. > >> draft-antti-rfc2806bis-05 has the following definition; I agree > >> that 1*phonedigit could be replaced by a term. Do you see any > >> particular reason for doing so? > > > > > > > > I was looking at the draft-antti-rfc2806bis-04, but after a short > > comparation it has no difference concerning the definition of > > global-number-part and local-number-part. > > > > The reason why I asked it was my confusion about how to reference the > > number itself. The application of this reference was the interworking > > between the CalledPartyNumber parameter in ISUP and the subscriber > > component of tel: URI. The mapping I got for the number information > > itself was: > > > > Address Signal = 1*phonedigit > > > > This seemed to me somehow confusing as the number information has > > only the definition of format but not a name. > > > > Btw the "+" sign could be named somehow as well so it would give the > > reference to distinguish the international and the national number > > formats. > > > > Greetings, Denis Alexeitsev > > > >_______________________________________________ >IPTEL mailing list >IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com >http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Aug 7 03:48:12 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08898 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g777n1218104; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:49:01 -0400 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (ns2.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g777gM218072 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:42:22 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g777gLLI042237 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id B63964439E; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9894439D for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g777gFo61211 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 03:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.telekom.de ([62.225.183.235]) by dusty; Wed Aug 7 03:41:58 EDT 2002 Received: from g9jbr.mgb01.telekom.de by G8SBV.dmz.telekom.de with ESMTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:42:09 +0200 Received: by G9JBR.mgb01.telekom.de with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:42:09 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Alexeitsev, D" To: hgs@cs.columbia.edu Cc: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:42:07 +0200 Good Day >I will remove local-number-part, which is also 1*phonedigit, and just >call it phone-number. I don't see the need to label "+" - you can just >as well refer to it literally. Agree. Greetings, Denis Alexeitsev _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Aug 7 05:28:38 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11014 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g779Qi219081; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:26:44 -0400 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (ns2.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g779Nf219058 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:23:41 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g779NfLI042939 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:23:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 418234439E; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A954439D for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g779NYk90922 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 05:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from babelfish.srmr.co.uk ([193.118.205.14]) by dusty; Wed Aug 7 05:23:18 EDT 2002 Received: from lawrence.srmr.co.uk ([193.118.192.111] ) by babelfish.srmr.co.uk (AppleMailServer 10.1.4.0) id 1033u via TCP with SMTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:22:12 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: lwc@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> To: Michael Hammer , Henning Schulzrinne From: Lawrence Conroy Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI Cc: "Alexeitsev, D" , iptel@lists.bell-labs.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:22:15 +0100 At 5:35 pm -0400 6/8/02, Michael Hammer wrote: >Going from memory, one time when I looked into this, there was a >difference between global and local numbers in their use of >over-decadic digits. Local allowed them, global did not. I would >have to chase down the reference. > >Is this saying that over-decadic can be used in global or that local >digits can now not be over-decadic. > >Mike > Hi Mike, Folks, "Over-decadic" was used for local numbers only to express RNs that were (?are?) used within some Netz. e.g. Cxxx and Fxxx to indicate "this is a network-internal routing number". It's mentioned in the BNF (as HEXDIG) and in ss 5.1.2 (line 264 onwards). The suggestion was that, as routing numbers are "network-internal", there's no need for this to be allowed in global numbers - an RN is not (necessarily) valid outside its context. Hence 5.1.2 says that it's unspecified but not prohibited for local numbers only. James Yu's draft on RN and CIC may make use of HEXDIG, so please let's not prohibit it. all the best, Lawrence -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not : intended to create any contractual or legal : relationship. _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Aug 7 12:31:39 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27049 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:31:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77GHL221017; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:17:21 -0400 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (ns2.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77GEd220994 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:14:39 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g77GEdLI046477 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 54C274439E; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296394439D for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g77GEWo01914 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:14:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com ([161.44.11.97]) by dusty; Wed Aug 7 12:09:08 EDT 2002 Received: from cia.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g77GENJ1004325; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:14:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHAMMER-W2K.cisco.com (hrn2-dhcp-161-44-87-145.cisco.com [161.44.87.145]) by cia.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ABB41851; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:09:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020807120714.00b76138@cia.cisco.com> X-Sender: mhammer@cia.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: Lawrence Conroy From: Michael Hammer Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI Cc: Henning Schulzrinne , "Alexeitsev, D" , iptel@lists.bell-labs.com In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:14:19 -0400 As mentioned, RN values may be over-decadic as described in E.164 supp 2, 11/98. So would it be fair to say that so long as RN and DN definitions are distinct and that other parameters point to use of either RN, DN, or both (or incorporate equivalent definitions), then this can be kept straight? Also, does CIC follow RN definition? Mike At 10:22 AM 8/7/2002 +0100, Lawrence Conroy wrote: >At 5:35 pm -0400 6/8/02, Michael Hammer wrote: >>Going from memory, one time when I looked into this, there was a >>difference between global and local numbers in their use of over-decadic >>digits. Local allowed them, global did not. I would have to chase down >>the reference. >> >>Is this saying that over-decadic can be used in global or that local >>digits can now not be over-decadic. >> >>Mike >Hi Mike, Folks, > "Over-decadic" was used for local numbers only to express RNs that were > (?are?) used within some Netz. >e.g. Cxxx and Fxxx to indicate "this is a network-internal routing number". >It's mentioned in the BNF (as HEXDIG) and in ss 5.1.2 (line 264 onwards). > >The suggestion was that, as routing numbers are "network-internal", >there's no need for this to be >allowed in global numbers - an RN is not (necessarily) valid outside its >context. Hence 5.1.2 says >that it's unspecified but not prohibited for local numbers only. > >James Yu's draft on RN and CIC may make use of HEXDIG, so please let's not >prohibit it. > >all the best, > Lawrence >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not >: intended to create any contractual or legal > : relationship. _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Aug 7 12:50:39 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27967 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77Ghr221220; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:43:58 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77GME221047 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:22:15 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g77GKBuB078509 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:20:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id AE3ED4439E; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889414439D for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g77GM8o02406 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com ([161.44.11.97]) by dusty; Wed Aug 7 12:16:43 EDT 2002 Received: from cia.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g77GM2nm005072; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHAMMER-W2K.cisco.com (hrn2-dhcp-161-44-87-145.cisco.com [161.44.87.145]) by cia.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ABB41930; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020807121943.00b76030@cia.cisco.com> X-Sender: mhammer@cia.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: Lawrence Conroy From: Michael Hammer Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI Cc: Henning Schulzrinne , "Alexeitsev, D" , iptel@lists.bell-labs.com In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:21:57 -0400 Also, note how phone-string is being defined in: draft-allocchio-gstn-04.txt: phone-string = 1*( DTMF / pause / tonewait / written-sep ) DTMF = ( DIGIT / "#" / "*" / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" ) written-sep = ( "-" / "." ) pause = "p" tonewait = "w" gstn-phone = ( global-phone / local-phone ) global-phone = "+" 1*( DIGIT / written-sep ) local-phone = [ exit-code ] dial-number local-phone =/ exit-code [ dial-number ] exit-code = phone-string dial-number = phone-string subaddr-string = phone-string post-dial = phone-string Mike At 10:22 AM 8/7/2002 +0100, Lawrence Conroy wrote: >At 5:35 pm -0400 6/8/02, Michael Hammer wrote: >>Going from memory, one time when I looked into this, there was a >>difference between global and local numbers in their use of over-decadic >>digits. Local allowed them, global did not. I would have to chase down >>the reference. >> >>Is this saying that over-decadic can be used in global or that local >>digits can now not be over-decadic. >> >>Mike >Hi Mike, Folks, > "Over-decadic" was used for local numbers only to express RNs that were > (?are?) used within some Netz. >e.g. Cxxx and Fxxx to indicate "this is a network-internal routing number". >It's mentioned in the BNF (as HEXDIG) and in ss 5.1.2 (line 264 onwards). > >The suggestion was that, as routing numbers are "network-internal", >there's no need for this to be >allowed in global numbers - an RN is not (necessarily) valid outside its >context. Hence 5.1.2 says >that it's unspecified but not prohibited for local numbers only. > >James Yu's draft on RN and CIC may make use of HEXDIG, so please let's not >prohibit it. > >all the best, > Lawrence >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not >: intended to create any contractual or legal > : relationship. _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Aug 7 13:16:30 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29462 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77H7w221484; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:07:58 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (ns1.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77GPe221066 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:25:40 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g77GNbuB078545 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 84E274439E; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF5A4439D for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g77GPYo02658 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]) by dusty; Wed Aug 7 12:20:09 EDT 2002 Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by goliath.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77GPRx02557; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:25:27 +0200 (MEST) Received: from mail-y.mchp.siemens.de (mail-y.mchp.siemens.de [139.23.203.56]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77GPRb07246; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:25:27 +0200 (MEST) Received: from cs.columbia.edu (mhpa6v8c [139.23.202.84]) by mail-y.mchp.siemens.de with ESMTP id g77GPRcH005235; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:25:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3D5149B6.6060708@cs.columbia.edu> From: Henning Schulzrinne Organization: Columbia University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020721 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Hammer Cc: Lawrence Conroy , "Alexeitsev, D" , iptel@lists.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020807121943.00b76030@cia.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:24:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, and that's a problem that's going to be causing confusion in the future if the allocchio draft goes forward. We had, I believe, intentionally decided not to support the various pauses and such in 2806bis, since they are dial strings, not directory or routing numbers. The idea was that adding pauses and such depended too strongly on the local environment to be useful in a URI. Michael Hammer wrote: > Also, note how phone-string is being defined in: > > draft-allocchio-gstn-04.txt: > > phone-string = 1*( DTMF / pause / tonewait / written-sep ) > > DTMF = ( DIGIT / "#" / "*" / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" ) > > written-sep = ( "-" / "." ) > > pause = "p" > > tonewait = "w" > > gstn-phone = ( global-phone / local-phone ) > > global-phone = "+" 1*( DIGIT / written-sep ) > > local-phone = [ exit-code ] dial-number > > local-phone =/ exit-code [ dial-number ] > > exit-code = phone-string > > dial-number = phone-string > > subaddr-string = phone-string > > post-dial = phone-string > > > Mike > > > > > At 10:22 AM 8/7/2002 +0100, Lawrence Conroy wrote: > >> At 5:35 pm -0400 6/8/02, Michael Hammer wrote: >> >>> Going from memory, one time when I looked into this, there was a >>> difference between global and local numbers in their use of >>> over-decadic digits. Local allowed them, global did not. I would >>> have to chase down the reference. >>> >>> Is this saying that over-decadic can be used in global or that local >>> digits can now not be over-decadic. >>> >>> Mike >> >> Hi Mike, Folks, >> "Over-decadic" was used for local numbers only to express RNs that >> were (?are?) used within some Netz. >> e.g. Cxxx and Fxxx to indicate "this is a network-internal routing >> number". >> It's mentioned in the BNF (as HEXDIG) and in ss 5.1.2 (line 264 onwards). >> >> The suggestion was that, as routing numbers are "network-internal", >> there's no need for this to be >> allowed in global numbers - an RN is not (necessarily) valid outside >> its context. Hence 5.1.2 says >> that it's unspecified but not prohibited for local numbers only. >> >> James Yu's draft on RN and CIC may make use of HEXDIG, so please let's >> not prohibit it. >> >> all the best, >> Lawrence >> -- >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not >> : intended to create any contractual or legal >> : relationship. > _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Aug 7 13:42:27 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00868 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77HY8222009; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:34:08 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (ns1.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77GrF221370 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:53:15 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g77GpBuB079047 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id DC0674439E; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D3A4439D for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g77Gr8o05457 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from babelfish.srmr.co.uk ([193.118.205.14]) by dusty; Wed Aug 7 12:47:44 EDT 2002 Received: from lawrence.srmr.co.uk ([193.118.192.111] ) by babelfish.srmr.co.uk (AppleMailServer 10.1.4.0) id 1743u via TCP with SMTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 17:52:53 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: lwc@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3D5149B6.6060708@cs.columbia.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020807121943.00b76030@cia.cisco.com> <3D5149B6.6060708@cs.columbia.edu> To: Henning Schulzrinne , Michael Hammer From: Lawrence Conroy Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI Cc: "Alexeitsev, D" , iptel@lists.bell-labs.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:52:46 +0100 At 12:24 pm -0400 7/8/02, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: >Yes, and that's a problem that's going to be causing confusion in >the future if the allocchio draft goes forward. We had, I believe, >intentionally decided not to support the various pauses and such in >2806bis, since they are dial strings, not directory or routing >numbers. The idea was that adding pauses and such depended too >strongly on the local environment to be useful in a URI. > >Michael Hammer wrote: >>Also, note how phone-string is being defined in: >> >>draft-allocchio-gstn-04.txt: Yup. Agree wholeheartedly with Henning on this. Dial strings are the wrong way to go. That draft is just....complex I think that the Internet Fax WG (from which this abomination came) are trying to solve some other problem - it is not at all clear to me what this is, and why they need pauses, etc. atb, Lawrence -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not : intended to create any contractual or legal : relationship. _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Aug 7 14:05:19 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01768 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:05:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77Hsp222276; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:54:51 -0400 Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77HZH222027 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:35:17 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g77HZHLI047500 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:35:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 347EC4439E; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B424439D for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g77HZ9o10008 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com ([161.44.11.97]) by dusty; Wed Aug 7 13:29:45 EDT 2002 Received: from cia.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g77HZ3wa014056; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MHAMMER-W2K.cisco.com (hrn2-dhcp-161-44-87-145.cisco.com [161.44.87.145]) by cia.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ABB42786; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020807132958.00b7ad50@cia.cisco.com> X-Sender: mhammer@cia.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: Lawrence Conroy From: Michael Hammer Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI Cc: Henning Schulzrinne , "Alexeitsev, D" , iptel@lists.bell-labs.com In-Reply-To: References: <3D5149B6.6060708@cs.columbia.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020807121943.00b76030@cia.cisco.com> <3D5149B6.6060708@cs.columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 13:32:30 -0400 Yes, I agree also. Just pointing out the over-decadic. I do not believe that things like pauses intended to compensate the difference between the speed of two machines locally should be included. Follow KISS principle Mike At 05:52 PM 8/7/2002 +0100, Lawrence Conroy wrote: >At 12:24 pm -0400 7/8/02, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: >>Yes, and that's a problem that's going to be causing confusion in the >>future if the allocchio draft goes forward. We had, I believe, >>intentionally decided not to support the various pauses and such in >>2806bis, since they are dial strings, not directory or routing numbers. >>The idea was that adding pauses and such depended too strongly on the >>local environment to be useful in a URI. >> >>Michael Hammer wrote: >>>Also, note how phone-string is being defined in: >>> >>>draft-allocchio-gstn-04.txt: > >Yup. >Agree wholeheartedly with Henning on this. >Dial strings are the wrong way to go. > >That draft is just....complex I think that the Internet Fax WG >(from which this abomination came) are trying to solve some other problem >- it is not at all clear to me what this is, and why they need pauses, etc. > >atb, Lawrence >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not >: intended to create any contractual or legal > : relationship. _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel From iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Wed Aug 7 14:35:29 2002 Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03169 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:35:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77IIs222745; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:18:54 -0400 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (ns1.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by share.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g77H9r221509 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:09:53 -0400 Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-27-211.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.27.211]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g77H7nuB079262 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:07:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id D02C04439E; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: iptel@sunny.research.bell-labs.com Received: from grubby.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.9]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62F34439D for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com (dusty.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.7]) by grubby.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g77H9ko06814 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from babelfish.srmr.co.uk ([193.118.205.14]) by dusty; Wed Aug 7 13:04:22 EDT 2002 Received: from lawrence.srmr.co.uk ([193.118.192.111] ) by babelfish.srmr.co.uk (AppleMailServer 10.1.4.0) id 1756u via TCP with SMTP; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 18:09:37 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: lwc@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020807120714.00b76138@cia.cisco.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020806173309.039a1468@cia.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020807120714.00b76138@cia.cisco.com> To: Michael Hammer From: Lawrence Conroy Subject: Re: [IPTEL] Structure of tel: URI Cc: Henning Schulzrinne , "Alexeitsev, D" , iptel@lists.bell-labs.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com Errors-To: iptel-admin@lists.bell-labs.com X-BeenThere: iptel@lists.bell-labs.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:09:34 +0100 At 12:14 pm -0400 7/8/02, Michael Hammer wrote: >As mentioned, RN values may be over-decadic as described in E.164 >supp 2, 11/98. So would it be fair to say that so long as RN and DN >definitions are distinct and that other parameters point to use of >either RN, DN, or both (or incorporate equivalent definitions), then >this can be kept straight? Also, does CIC follow RN definition? > >Mike > Hi again Mike, Folks, "Over-decadic"s are described in a number of places :). RN and DN definitions may include the same digits - AFAIK there are few states that *still* use the Hex prefix for RNs. Thus in the general case it is not possible to decide whether a digit string is a DN or an RN merely by inspection of that string alone. Thus DN and RN definitions are not disjoint in the BNF; the interpretation must be understood from context. If the digit string is inside the RN parameter, then this is clear. In the case of some uses of ENUM-like systems ("infrastructure ENUM"), ALL tel: URLs within that system will be either CICs or RNs - in that case one may not need any further indication, as it should be clear from context - it has come from a system that only includes RNs, therefore it's an RN. Re. CIC: I believe that Carrier Identification Code is a joy as it's a national thing. IMHO, it's difficult to specify this further than just 1*digitstring. In North America CIC syntax will be a defined subset of this; I'm not sure if the subset used is identical in Austria, for example. Hence I think 2806bis includes enough definition to be useful, but not too much. all the best, Lawrence -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roke Manor Research : This information is provided "as is" and is not : intended to create any contractual or legal : relationship. _______________________________________________ IPTEL mailing list IPTEL@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel