Subject: Re: [Iptel] Summary of +1-800 for tel URI discussion

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:19:46 -0500

> However, I thought that the "context" was also being suggested for the
> "Pizza Hut" case in which one "organization" has a number, but it routes
> to different places depending on where it is dialed from. Technically,
> that is no different than if multiple organizations use the same number
> in different areas for different purposes.

As I've tried to make clear several times, apparently failing at it, is 
that in the context of tel URIs, this makes a big difference. The URI is 
an identifier for a logical resource. PizzaHut is one logical resource, 
"weddings in PA" and "divorces in NV" are, by any reasonable definition, 
two.

>
>
> Unfortunately, I believe the answer you got from NANPA could be 

I got the answer from SMS/800, not NANPA. SMS/800 does the assignment to 
RespOrgs.

>
> misinterpeted. Their answer is that a particular number can only be
> assigned to one Service Provider (i.e., AT&T, Sprint, etc.), which is
> what they do. The question was whether a number could be used by
> multiple RespOrgs ("weddings in PA, divorces in NV"). I don't believe
> that NANPA cares how the service provider routes calls for that 800
> number. If AT&T wants to sell the same number is two different areas, I
> suppose they could do it.

They could, but since the 800# is portable, the NV lawyer can take his 
number and go nationwide, leaving the poor wedding organizer stranded. 
(The 1-800-LAWYER case is a bit different in that there's effectively an 
intermediate organization that hands out "franchises". The individual 
lawyer doesn't own a piece. Plus, by definition, this is for a service 
which is to be perceived as one service.)

>
>
> How about other cases besides 800? The ongoing discussion in IEPREP is
> based on GETS which uses a 710- number, dialed from anywhere in the US,
> with routing to the "nearest" switch that understands what to do with
> it. Based on the previous discussion on 800, one could argue that 710-
> also needs a "context" to control routing. How about 900-?

No, it doesn't. The 710 number always means the same thing ("go to GETS 
access gateway"), even if the routing differs. Same for 900.

>
>
> I would just like to say that "context" never is used with an E.164
> number or anything that can properly be represented as one and is not
> intended to tell routing logic anything about the source or destination
> of a call. Its only purpose is to allow the destination to verify that a
> private number it receives is one that it should be able to understand.

That's what I've been arguing, yes...

>
>
> That still leaves unclear the use of "context" for local dialing
> "prefixs" and "codes" lilke 0, 911, 411, etc. That requires another
> discussion line.

I think either
tel:911;context=+1 or
tel:+1-911
would work, semantically. I suspect the former will elicit fewer groans.

> Mike Pierce
> Artel

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:09:21 EST

In a message dated 12/2/2002 2:07:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Best to read iptel messages most-recent-first :-) Given that there are 
> no indications that 800# are re-used across distinct organizations, 
> there is no need for a context.
> 

Agreed that it is sometimes best to read them in reverse order (or only read 
the last couple hours and delete the rest.)

However, I thought that the "context" was also being suggested for the "Pizza 
Hut" case in which one "organization" has a number, but it routes to 
different places depending on where it is dialed from. Technically, that is 
no different than if multiple organizations use the same number in different 
areas for different purposes.

Unfortunately, I believe the answer you got from NANPA could be 
misinterpeted. Their answer is that a particular number can only be assigned 
to one Service Provider (i.e., AT&T, Sprint, etc.), which is what they do. 
The question was whether a number could be used by multiple RespOrgs 
("weddings in PA, divorces in NV"). I don't believe that NANPA cares how the 
service provider routes calls for that 800 number. If AT&T wants to sell the 
same number is two different areas, I suppose they could do it.

How about other cases besides 800? The ongoing discussion in IEPREP is based 
on GETS which uses a 710- number, dialed from anywhere in the US, with 
routing to the "nearest" switch that understands what to do with it. Based on 
the previous discussion on 800, one could argue that 710- also needs a 
"context" to control routing. How about 900-?

I would just like to say that "context" never is used with an E.164 number or 
anything that can properly be represented as one and is not intended to tell 
routing logic anything about the source or destination of a call. Its only 
purpose is to allow the destination to verify that a private number it 
receives is one that it should be able to understand.

That still leaves unclear the use of "context" for local dialing "prefixs" 
and "codes" lilke 0, 911, 411, etc. That requires another discussion line.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:27:01 -0500 (EST)

> areas for different purposes.

that is what I was trying to say

Scott

---

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 22:47:11 -0800

> would work, semantically. I suspect the former will elicit fewer groans.

We could consider something like 411 a user interface mnemonic that you dial
to get a common service. On my cell phone 411 gets me a service that refuses
to tell me the phone number of subscribers to the same cellular service and
is perfectly happy to make restaurant reservation for me and give me driving
instructions. Go figure.