Re: Structure of tel: URI

At 12:14 pm -0400 7/8/02, Michael Hammer wrote:
>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
>
Hi again Mike, Folks,
   "Over-decadic"s are described in a number of places :).
RN and DN definitions may include the same digits - AFAIK there are 
few states that *still*
use the Hex prefix for RNs. Thus in the general case it is not 
possible to decide whether
a digit string is a DN or an RN merely by inspection of that string 
alone. Thus DN and RN
definitions are not disjoint in the BNF; the interpretation must be 
understood from context.

If the digit string is inside the RN parameter, then this is clear.

In the case of some uses of ENUM-like systems ("infrastructure 
ENUM"), ALL tel: URLs
within that system will be either CICs or RNs - in that case one may 
not need any
further indication, as it should be clear from context - it has come 
from a system
that only includes RNs, therefore it's an RN.

Re. CIC:
I believe that Carrier Identification Code is a joy as it's a national thing.

IMHO, it's difficult to specify this further than just 1*digitstring.

In North America CIC syntax will be a defined subset of this; I'm not 
sure if the
subset used is identical in Austria, for example.

Hence I think 2806bis includes enough definition to be useful, but 
not too much.

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.