Re: Structure of tel: URI

Going from memory, one time when I looked into this, there was a difference 
between global and local numbers in their use of over-decadic 
digits.  Local allowed them, global did not.  I would have to chase down 
the reference.

Is this saying that over-decadic can be used in global or that local digits 
can now not be over-decadic.

Mike


At 01:40 PM 8/6/2002 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>I will remove local-number-part, which is also 1*phonedigit, and just
>call it phone-number. I don't see the need to label "+" - you can just as 
>well refer to it literally.
>
>Alexeitsev, D wrote:
> > Thanks for the comment
> >
> >
> >> I'm not sure what draft you're referring to.
> >> draft-antti-rfc2806bis-05 has the following definition; I agree
> >> that 1*phonedigit could be replaced by a term. Do you see any
> >> particular reason for doing so?
> >
> >
> >
> > I was looking at the draft-antti-rfc2806bis-04, but after a short
> > comparation it has no difference concerning the definition of
> > global-number-part and local-number-part.
> >
> > The reason why I asked it was my confusion about how to reference the
> > number itself. The application of this reference was the interworking
> > between the CalledPartyNumber parameter in ISUP and the subscriber
> > component of tel: URI. The mapping I got for the number information
> > itself was:
> >
> > Address Signal = 1*phonedigit
> >
> > This seemed to me somehow confusing as the number information has
> > only the definition of format but not a name.
> >
> > Btw the "+" sign could be named somehow as well so it would give the
> > reference to distinguish the international and the national number
> > formats.
> >
> > Greetings, Denis Alexeitsev
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>IPTEL mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel