Re: Send-n, rat holes and real issues

So why doesn't someone go to Gordon Brown and tell him to fix the bloody UK
dial plan? 

Oh ..that's right they tried that before and a couple of Ministers got
sacked.

And with the latest poll numbers looking as they do ...probably not a real
option. :-)

Sorry ...

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>  Of Rosbotham, Paul
>  Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:44 AM
>  To: Duane; [email protected]
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] Send-n, rat holes and real issues
>  
>  LOL, you're learning.  I went through similar angst trying to prepare
>  the NICC number length guidelines document I referenced earlier in
>  this thread.
>  
>  I think you missed that there are a couple of hundred assorted ranges
>  in S=1 (ie +44 1) which are of 9 digit length, and even a couple at 8
>  digits.  Also, specific ranges in S=8 (ie +44 8) which are 7 digit
>  (e.g. (0)800 1111 is our child helpine).  NB as Clive said, when I say
>  9, that's 11 in international form (inc 44).
>  
>  What you're looking at is the supposedly authoritative source of data.
>  Better info can be found, but only by talking to the individual
>  CPs...of which there are currently 384, off the top of my head.
>  That's what we're trying to get away from.
>  
>  The point of Send-N is that the records are set according to what's
>  populated into ENUM.
>  
>  - In the context of our porting database (ie a private ENUM), current
>  plans are that it would be populated with all numbers hence Send-N
>  would reflect the true structure of the numbering plan.
>  - In the context of user-ENUM where population is inevitably partial,
>  then Send-N would reflect what's in there...e.g. if +448001111 wasn't
>  populated, then no Send-N records would reflect its existence.  That's
>  the point that Jay's been trying to get across...in a user-ENUM
>  context the number lengths as specified by the numbering plan
>  administrator are of limited value...e.g. if there was a range in the
>  UK that was 15 digits long, coding that into Send-N in ENUM is pretty
>  pointless unless any such numbers were actually populated in ENUM.
>  
>  Cheers
>  
>  Paul
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>  Duane
>  Sent: 10 July 2008 12:27
>  To: [email protected]
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] Send-n, rat holes and real issues
>  
>  
>  Rosbotham, Paul wrote:
>  
>  > I note that both S8 and S9 have rows with no entry in the Notes
>  > field.  I would assume that these are 10 digits long, but this is an
>  > assumption.  Perhaps this re-inforces that getting the data is a
>  > non-trivial activity?
>  
>  Actually S7 doesn't either. Does anyone have a better/more accurate
>  source of information?
>  
>  Based on the information at hand most routes seems to be 10 digits
>  except for S8 which has 9 and 7 digit numbers listed as well.
>  
>  If the missing information means 10 digits it would be pretty trivial
>  to
>  collate this information, however that would be guessing and someone
>  should have this information published somewhere especially if someone
>  is planning to put it into send-n, or is the information going into
>  send-n guesses too?
>  
>  --
>  
>  Best regards,
>   Duane
>  _______________________________________________
>  enum mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>  
>  This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-
>  mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on
>  a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit
>  http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/
>  
>  The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also
>  be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the
>  recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient,
>  you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the
>  information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail
>  in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above)
>  immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments
>  without retaining any copies.
>  
>  Cable and Wireless plc
>  Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525
>  Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ
>  _______________________________________________
>  enum mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum