Re: Comments on RFC2806bis

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> > You can probably argue both ways on that, but I don't feel strongly about it. It leads
> > to the next question though, which is really for James: Will the yu-tel-url parameters
> > be prefixed with "m-" ?
>
> I actually changed from o- to m- because of James' draft. He claimed
> that all "his" parameters were optional and he didn't want to change his
> parameter names.

I must be missing something then. How can a CIC code and a routing number be optional ? Are
you saying you can just ignore carrier selection and route ported numbers to the old
exchange ?

-- Flemming