Subject: RE: [Iptel] Comments on draft rfc-2600bis

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:09:31 +0200

Although I am still not perfectly happy with Mikes proposed text, I
prefer Mike proposal 
rather then the original text.
 
The problem I have in general is that the terms public network vs
private networks work on the
PSTN/ISDN and are well defined here, but do not work on the Internet,
and E.164 endpoints may also be
on the Internet now.
 
In addition, an E.164 may also define an end-point in a private network,
if part of it is a "partial" number,
as defined in E.164 Annex B.
I do not want to blame anybody out there for this mess, because even
ITU-T Rec. E.164 is not 
clear about this definitions. The problem has been recognised already
and a correspondance
group has been established at the last SG2 meeting to work on this, but
this is no help for now.
 
Richard

	-----Original Message-----
	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:54 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Iptel] Comments on draft rfc-2600bis

	Several additional comments on new version (although the
material commented on was in previous versions): 
	
	Definition of Address-of-record and Dial String 
	
	Section 2 defines two types of telephone numbers:
"address-of-record" (or identifier) and "dial string". Unfortunately,
the definitions leave some uncertainty as to where addresses which
represent destinations in a private network belong. Since such a number
as passed within such a private network may not be exactly what was
dialed, it is not a "dial string". However, "Address-of-record" is
defined in terms of "a public network termination point". Neither
definition correctly covers the private network number. 
	
	The problem seems to be the definition of "Address-of-record"
which directly relates it to a "public network". The definition should
include the notion of "non-public" networks as follows: 
	
	--------------------- 
	Address-of-record or identifier: The telephone number is
understood here as the canonical address-of-record or identifier for a
termination point within a specific network. For the public network,
these numbers generally follow the rules in E.164 [4]. Subscribers
publish such identifiers or phone numbers as a universal means of being
reached from within that network, independent of the location of the
caller. (Naturally, not all numbers are reachable from everywhere in a
network, for a variety of technical and local policy reasons.) It should
be noted that a single termination point in one network may be reachable
from different networks and would then have multiple such identifiers,
one valid from each network. 
	----------------------

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:50 -0400

Unless this makes a crucial difference to the interpretation of the core 
part of the text or the use of tel URIs, may I suggest that we leave 
this philosophical discussion to the efforts within SG2 and move on?

> group has been established at the last SG2 meeting to work on this, but 

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