[Iptel] Re: Review of draft-antti-rfc2806bis-08 - The tel URI for TelephoneC alls

[Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>]

Francois Audet wrote:

Thank you much for your extensive comments. I'll only comment on the 
more major changes, just in case somebody wants to jump in.

> ----------
>
> 1)  (Editorial) Title: I believe the title should be "The tel URI for 
> Telephone
>     Numbers" instead of "The tel URI for Telephone Calls" since a URI 
> does not
>     imply that there is a call.
Agreed.



> 11) Page 6 (Editorial)
>     Change "Their" to "their" in section 5 title.
Nope, says "Words into Type" :-)

> 12) Page 7
>     Section 5.1.2 does not describe what to do with non-numeric DTMF 
> digits (A, B
>     C and D). This is NOT the same as the ISUP BCD-encoded A-F digits. 
> Those
>     digits are defined in ITU-T Q.23. I would imagine that we want to 
> prohibit
>     their use in a URI.
Since those DTMF digits would be dial string, I tend to agree, although 
I don't know how you'd tell the difference in URI between a 'legal' Q.23 
letter A and an illegal DTMF 'A'.

> 18) Page 15 (Minor)
>     The description of Proxy translation encourages people to use URIs
>     like "sip:1234@foobar.com" and let the proxy "deal" with it. I tought
>     this is exactly what we did NOT want to encourage people to do since
>     it assumes a uniform dialing plan accross a whole proxy. This would 
> force
>     the service providers to deploy as many proxies as there are
>     dialing plans which is very undesireable.
>     Rather, I would encourage people to use a phone-context (in a tel URI
>     or prefereably a SIP URI) that identifies the dialing context
>     explicitely. For example, it could be as follows: 
> tel:1234;phone-context=
>     munich.example.com (or 
> sip:1234;phone-context=munich.example.com@example.com;
>     user=phone).
>     With this approach, the service provider could assign a 
> phone-context per
>     dialing plan and not require one proxy per dialing plan. A large number
>     of phones could be deployed, for example, in the Munich office by 
> having
>     all the phones preconfigured with the 
> phone-context=munich.example.com (of
>     course it could also be manually configured).
>     I fear that if we leave it as is, the phone manufactures will take 
> the easy
>     way out and NOT allow for configuration of the phone-context which will
>     not make for easy deployment, especially when multiple regional 
> offices with
>     different dialing plans are supported.
I tried to reword the section to address this concern, which I share.




_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel