Re: Structure of tel: URI

As mentioned, RN values may be over-decadic as described in E.164 supp 2, 
11/98.  So would it be fair to say that so long as RN and DN definitions 
are distinct and that other parameters point to use of either RN, DN, or 
both (or incorporate equivalent definitions), then this can be kept 
straight?  Also, does CIC follow RN definition?

Mike


At 10:22 AM 8/7/2002 +0100, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>At 5:35 pm -0400 6/8/02, Michael Hammer wrote:
>>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
>Hi Mike, Folks,
>   "Over-decadic" was used for local numbers only to express RNs that were 
> (?are?) used within some Netz.
>e.g. Cxxx and Fxxx to indicate "this is a network-internal routing number".
>It's mentioned in the BNF (as HEXDIG) and in ss 5.1.2 (line 264 onwards).
>
>The suggestion was that, as routing numbers are "network-internal", 
>there's no need for this to be
>allowed in global numbers - an RN is not (necessarily) valid outside its 
>context. Hence 5.1.2 says
>that it's unspecified but not prohibited for local numbers only.
>
>James Yu's draft on RN and CIC may make use of HEXDIG, so please let's not 
>prohibit it.
>
>all the best,
>   Lawrence
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Roke Manor Research    : This information is provided "as is" and is not
><mailto:[email protected]>: intended to create any contractual or legal
><tel:+441794833666>    : relationship.