Subject: [IPTEL] 2806bis-3 comments

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:47:10 +0100

Hi Henning, Folks,

Re. ABNF on lines 198 to 204.

A minor point, but one that would be convenient for the future:
I would like a slight expansion to the ABNF (but one with no 
syntactic change to the URI).

When discussing the elements that make up a uri-value, it is useful 
to be able to name that portion consisting of the "raw" number-part 
(for lack of a better term), as well as separating out the other 
parameters from the core one(s).

thus:
         telephone-uri      =  "tel:" subscriber *other                <
         subscriber         =  global-number / local-number            |
         global-number      =  global-number-part [isdn-subaddress]    <
         global-number-part =  "+" 1*globaldigit                      <<
         local-number       =  local-number-part                       <
                               [isdn-subaddress]                       |
                               1*(context)                             |
         local-number-part  =  1*localdigit                           <<

Where a trailing | denotes unchanged line, < denotes a changed line, 
<< indicates an added line, and > denotes a line has been removed.

The goal here is to allow a named non-terminal to define just the 
"number part" of the 'tel:' URI, and to define the overall 
telephone-uri as being in three parts, so meaning that a 'subscriber' 
does not include
the 'other' parameter(s). The isdn-subaddress and context attributes
are bound closely to the rest of the 'subscriber', whilst the 'other'
parameters may or may not be so closely bound.

This will allow the ABNF for subscriber, global-number-part and 
local-number-part to be re-used in other documents without requiring 
other-parameters to be included. With the benefit of hindsight, it 
would have been useful for the PINT RFC (and saved me personally a 
great deal of discussion when debugging the first parser we produced 
for this :).

all the best,
   Lawrence
-- 
[email-masked]: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:
_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 19:27:31 -0400

Thank you. Your comments will be incorporated into -04.

Lawrence Conroy wrote:
> I would like a slight expansion to the ABNF (but one with no syntactic 
> change to the URI).
> 
> When discussing the elements that make up a uri-value, it is useful to 
> be able to name that portion consisting of the "raw" number-part (for 
> lack of a better term), as well as separating out the other parameters 
> from the core one(s).
> 
> thus:
> Where a trailing | denotes unchanged line, < denotes a changed line, << 
> indicates an added line, and > denotes a line has been removed.
> 
> "number part" of the 'tel:' URI, and to define the overall telephone-uri 
> as being in three parts, so meaning that a 'subscriber' does not include
> other-parameters to be included. With the benefit of hindsight, it would 
> have been useful for the PINT RFC (and saved me personally a great deal 
> of discussion when debugging the first parser we produced for this :).
> 
> all the best,
>   Lawrence