Re: Send-N draft: draft-bellis-enum-send-n-02 published

> What you want is a dial plan.  Fine, we should standardize a way to get 
a
> dial plan for every TN.  In nearly every case, that comes from the
> regulator.  There are conditions where what you get from the regulator 
is a
> dial plan that determines the end of a "prefix" and you have to go 
somewhere
> else to get the rest of the dial plan.  Fine, we can do that.
> 
> 99% of the telephone numbers in the world have a pretty simple dial 
plan.
> That's the case we should optimize. 

I don't believe it's as simple as you say.

The UK dial plan alone contains 1000s of entries.  Germany's is another 
100+.

> Overlapped dialing decoding is walking through a dial plan.  We should
> provide the means to do that.  All of the hundreds of millions of phones 
you
> are talking about work fine without Send-N.

But those existing phones are connected to switches that *do* use Send-N 
in C7  (which of course is what this is named after).

> They have the dial plan for the home country burnt into the switch, and 
they use
> a time out for international numbers. 

The large number of dial plan entries for the UK means that for some 
number ranges (in particular +44800) they're having to use inter-digit 
timeouts, and they're not happy about it.

The UK carriers are therefore actively trying *not* to have the UK dial 
plan burnt into their switches, and this is the proposed implementation.

> There is value in improving the dialing experience of everyone, but not 
so
> much that we need make it really optimal. 

The carriers consider any use of time outs to be unacceptably sub-optimal. 
 Our proposal avoids them completely.

> You have brought us a problem I
> think is worth solving: determining dial plans for international 
numbers.  I
> don't like your solution, but I'm happy to work on the problem.

The more the merrier :)

cheers,

Ray