[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: AW: [Iptel] comments on rfc2806bis - 800 numbers
Title: Message
Sounds
reasonable to me.
There have been several comments related to
the format/use of freephone (e.g., 800) numbers in the tel:uri.
In a
message dated 11/19/2002 8:39:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at writes:
As stated below, an national 800 number is always part of the
E.164 numbering plan. Depending
on the accounting agreements between
national operators, you may reach the 800 numbers in another country or not.
If not, on the PSTN you are routed to an announcement.
So if yes,
you may use e.g. tel:+1800xxx for an NANP 800 number, if not, you may
indicate
this with tel:800xxx,phonecontext=+1
In a message dated 11/19/2002 9:03:39
PM Eastern Standard Time, audet@nortelnetworks.com writes:
It may work sometimes, but not always. For example, a number may
be valid in
the US but not in Canada (this is very common, perhaps even
the most common
case).
These countries however both share the same
+1 country code.
I guess one could argue that the area code of the
originator could be listed
as phone-context
(phone-context=+1-408).
The proxy would have to figure out that 408 is part
of the US not
Canada, and if it is valid or not for this 1-800 number (it would be
impractical to list
ALL the area codes where the 1-800 is valid).
Another alternative would be a phone-context describing differently
the
applicability
domain (something.ca or something.us).
In a message dated 11/19/2002 8:59:19
PM Eastern Standard Time, oran@cisco.com writes:
the unfortunate fact that E.164 numbers in the +1-800 domain
cannot be
successfully reached from anywhere does not in any way affect
their
validity as global tel: URL numbers.
[MAP]
I think one needs to look at the intended use of this tel:uri. I think of the
best example (certainly one of the valid ones) is that the tel:uri is the real
information to dial a call that is "behind" a link on a web page. In this
case, anyone anywhere in the world may try to place a call by clicking on this
link. Therefore, the contents/format of the tel:uri should not depend on
whether or not your local national agreements allows the call to be made. The
format needs to be one single global format (E.164-type format works well) and
the local user agent/device needs to be able to figure out from the
information in the tel:uri as well as knowledge of where it is to decide
whether or not the call can be made (or even how to make it).
The fact
that an 800 number can be represented as an E.164 number is not unfortunate -
I think it is a big help here.
I suggest that the rule is that any
number that can be represented in the E.164 format MUST be done this way. (A
slight strengthening/clarification of the current text.) This means that an
"800" number would never have a context included, just as no other E.164
number needs one. This removes some of the difficulties with the current
definition.
What I would really expect on a simple web page is
something like the following:
If in Germany, click here (the tel:uri
behind it contains Germany country code and the 800 number)
If in Austria,
click here (the tel:uri behind it contains Austria country code and the 800
number)
If in Italy click here (the tel:uri behind it contains Italy
country code and the 800 number)
If in Maryland, click here
etc.
If the 800 numbers in multiple places happen to be the same string of
numbers, that is not important.)
Clicking on the wrong link for the
location would simply result in a call failing, just as if you read off the
wrong number from a list and dialed it on your PSTN phone.
On the
other hand, a more complex web page/user agent may include logic (Java
Script?) to provide a single point to click, and the user agent/device would
know where it is (within the numbering plans) or the user would have told it
and the UA would figure out which one of many internal numbers to use to place
the call. Each of these internal numbers would be in the form of a tel:uri.
Mike Pierce
Artel