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

["Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <lwc@roke.co.uk>]

Hi Henning, François, folks,
At 5:29 pm -0400 24/6/03, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> Francois Audet wrote (on 25/04/03, in HTML) a review of 2806-08.
>
> Thank you much for your extensive comments. I'll only comment on the 
> more major changes, just in case somebody wants to jump in.
OK, here goes...referring back to the pints made in François' original review:

2)   final sub-point: Perhaps "resource associated with a telephone 
number" might
     be less easily confused with telephone numbers as a resource? 
(I've read too
     many SG2//SPAN//... documents :).

7)  I disagree. The program on my PC knows the context in which it works; if I
    select a number from my address book it will detect where this involves
    a call external to the ISPBX and will process this to include the "public
    escape digit", in our case "9". This is passed via ISDN signalling to the
    ISPBX from the ISDN phone that is in turn driven by the program. This is
    a dialer application, as it DOES have to deal with dialing plans - my
    address book doesn't, and the phone doesn't. I think that this is an
    immediate counter-example, so I'd suggest that it is left as is in -08.

8)  I took the parenthetical clause to mean DID or MSN/partial number or
    sub-addressing service. Whilst we COULD spell out all of the options,
    the use of "DID" (DDI over here) to encompass all of these services
    seems better, IMHO.

9)  Oops - what was this section meant to cover?

10) Big point:: If this is the sense of the group, then I'll live with it.
    However, I don't like it at all, as it is perfectly possible to identify
    a number of contexts in which an address resolves to the same termination
    point (usually to a call centre somewhere in India). Programming the same
    drop point for the "same" number used in different countries/contexts does
    happen, so whilst this is by no means always the case, this doesn't mean
    that it never happens. Multiple contexts can be valid for a given number,
    IMHO, so I don't think we should ban them.

12) I agree with you both - I don't see how we can avoid prohibiting ISUP
    non-decadic signals (useful for some private systems) whilst blocking
    the non-decadic dialed digits, so I guess we have to leave it as is -
    I take the last sentence to discourage their use anyway.

13) That's why it's a SHOULD rather than a MUST; how does this proposed
    additional text help? Please can we leave this as is (it has been
    through enough iterations already :).

14) Big Point redux:: I disagree, for the same reasons given for (10) above.

17) only if we want a circular reference :)

18) Absolutely agree with this - unfortunately, it clashes with 
reality right now :(

Perhaps we should put in a sentence to clarify that:

    "This basic approach is can be onerous, in that the OBP may 
maintain a number
    of different contexts, and so may be forced to add a 
phone-context appropriate
    to the private number plan associated with the call to any tel: 
URI it generates,
    interpreting this based either on the identity of the originating 
phone user
    and the number they specify in the call".


all the best,
  Lawrence
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roke Manor Research    : This information is provided "as is" and is not
<mailto:lwc@roke.co.uk>: intended to create any contractual or legal
<tel:+441794833666>    : relationship.

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