Subject: Re: [Iptel] Another approach for tel: URI definition

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:26:52 EST

In a message dated 1/14/2003 9:49:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Thanks for the pointer. If only the hierarchy in phone numbers were as 
> simple as the article makes it sound like... (In particular, given the 7 
> digit and 10-digit dialing plans in the US, it is highly dubious that 
> this is useful to generate dialing strings.)
> 

Yes, interesting stuff in the docuement pointed to. Guess at one time our 
numbering system (at least in the US) was hierarchical (based on geography), 
but we've managed to mess that up with our overlaying of area codes, 7 and 10 
digit dialing, and local number portability, all in the name of forcing 
"local competition" on a market that doesn't need it.

My opinions.

Mike Pierce

---

From: "Thomas Dillingham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:58:49 -0600

Actually the hierarchy in the telephone numbers is that simple.  A NPA/NNX
can only exist at one C.O.  The Area code system is somewhat blurred, but it
is still, for the most part intact.  The opinion that "Forced Competition"
has caused this is an opinion that I do not agree with.  The increase in
available technology has caused an overwhelming number of new PSTN devices,
i.e. Fax Machines, Modems, Cell Phones, pagers etc...  Regardless of my
opinion that fact remains that some areas require 10 digits and others
7digits, and in the USA this is something we must consider.

Thomas Dillingham
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
  Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 10:27 AM
  To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: Re: [Iptel] Another approach for tel: URI definition

  Yes, interesting stuff in the docuement pointed to. Guess at one time our
numbering system (at least in the US) was hierarchical (based on geography),
but we've managed to mess that up with our overlaying of area codes, 7 and
10 digit dialing, and local number portability, all in the name of forcing
"local competition" on a market that doesn't need it.

  My opinions.

  Mike Pierce

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:58:20 -0500

URIs are only concerned about hierarchy of naming. Hierarchy of 
administrative ownership is irrelevant. Construction of dialing plans is 
also something separate (I thought we agreed that, no?). AFAIK, the 
construction of the NANP as a *naming mechanism* was, and still is, 
hierarchical.

The value in the proposed syntax is that it would support the usage of 
relative URI references for tel URIs. Indeed, we use this all the time. 
It would mean that tel:./5050 would indeed represent 
tel://1/973/854/5050 when applied against the base URI tel://1/973/854, 
which represents the base URI for an enterprise using a PBX.

-Jonathan R.

[email-masked] wrote:
> Yes, interesting stuff in the docuement pointed to. Guess at one time 
> our numbering system (at least in the US) was hierarchical (based on 
> geography), but we've managed to mess that up with our overlaying of 
> area codes, 7 and 10 digit dialing, and local number portability, all in 
> the name of forcing "local competition" on a market that doesn't need it.
> 
> My opinions.
> 
> Mike Pierce

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:07:56 -0500

I agree that as long as you use this strictly as an abbreviation, this 
can work.

I'm not wedded to any particular syntax; is it worth breaking the 
existing base, if there is any? This would only help on web pages, if 
you have lots of phone numbers.

In practical terms, while one can teach a modern browser to hand off to 
   a specialty application for tel and other 'new' URI schemes, it is 
very unlikely that it would know anything about hierarchy and base URLs 
(which there aren't any, unlike for HTML pages retrieved via HTTP). 
Thus, the application would likely get tel:./5050, without any way of 
resolving this to the full URI.

Indeed, the basic question is: what would be the base URI? In HTTP/HTML, 
this is clear, based on the URI used to retrieve the page or an explicit 
base URI HTML entry, even without explicit definition 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#resolving-relative-uris). 
In HTML with tel references, it's not clear how you'd define that and 
what would happen if you didn't.  I doubt that

<BASE href="tel://1/212/555-1234">

is going to work.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:29:04 -0500

I wasn't proposing to use the format, I was merely arguing with the 
proposition that it was useless because of dialing plan variations or 
LNP. I agree that it is unlikely to work in web pages because there 
really is no concept of a base URI for the document.

-Jonathan R.

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>> administrative ownership is irrelevant. Construction of dialing plans 
>> is also something separate (I thought we agreed that, no?). AFAIK, the 
>> relative URI references for tel URIs. Indeed, we use this all the 
>> time. It would mean that tel:./5050 would indeed represent 
>> tel://1/973/854/5050 when applied against the base URI 
>> tel://1/973/854, which represents the base URI for an enterprise using 
>> a PBX.
>>
>> -Jonathan R.
> 
>