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

Hi again Ray, folks,
Let me get this straight - this whole thing is being developed because  
some historical choices by a Regulator in the UK covering freephone  
numbers means that there are numbers in that range with two different  
lengths?
[AFAICT, forget the dialling plan side of things, it's a red herring -  
this is a number plan issue]

The current situation is that Operators have to "do some funky stuff"  
in each switch to handle this historical choice, and I can understand  
why they are unhappy with it. It was brain damaged, it is brain  
damaged, and it needs to be fixed.

However, why on earth should the IETF produce something this  
"interesting" just to deal with UK freephone numbers?
You have already said that the current (PSTN) situation is a mess -  
inter-digit timeouts and all.
This is not an ENUM issue - it's a general issue with that particular  
part of that country's number plan.

all the best,
  Lawrence


On 27 Jun 2008, at 15:18, [email protected] wrote:
> 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.