Re: Comments on RFC2806bis

At 3:52 pm -0400 21/5/02, Michael Hammer wrote:
>It would not be a good idea to use a local dial plan in an 
>international number format as suggested for Vienna.
>
>In response to my earlier posting
>>
>>The context is a qualifier on the applicability of the URI. It's not
>>really more than one parameter - The single parameter 'phone-context' can
>>have more than one value. This can happen due to introduction of 
>>relief codes,
>>or the Vienna case, where there are two codes to dial Vienna 
>>(within Austria).
>>Thus a Viennese phone could have two values for its phone context (01 and the
>>old code - can't remember what this is, off hand). As an aside, the old code
>>is not valid outside Austria, so writing this in International form 
>>is strange.

To which I respond:
Hi Mike, folks,

(This may be where we get to counting the number of Angels on a pinhead :)

Strictly, the old code is blocked at the International Gateway Exchange.
Thus it can be written as a valid E.164 number; it is just blocked from
International origination. Both versions are unambiguous, it's just that
one is not routable from some origination points.

+43-22-123456 - is this an E.164 number?
+43-1-123456 - is this an E.164 number?
If these are dialled from within Austria, they should terminate at the same
'phone. If you try to dial the first variant outside Austria, it's blocked.

Thus I can imagine this kind of URI:

<tel:123456;phone-context=+431;phone-context=+4322>

but...the fully routable one would be:

<tel:+43-1-123456>

Thus, I'm not sure I understand the concern.

all the best,
    Lawrence
-- 
[email protected]: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>: