Re: Comments on RFC2806bis

At 05:34 PM 5/22/2002 +0100, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>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.

I don't understand how you can call the number international if it is 
blocked when dialed outside Austria.  Isn't that an oxymoron of some type?

Mike


>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>: