Subject: RE: [Iptel] comments on rfc2806bis

From: "Alexeitsev, D" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:12:11 +0100

Hello All

>So, in the interests of transcribability and in keeping with the trend 
>in the ISBN URN, I would argue that we retain the separators and remove 
>them for comparison purposes.

[DA] Is there a difference from the point of view of the URI definition between user input standardisation and protocol on the wire standardisation? In the case of user input I agree that It might be simpler to use telephone numbers with separation as lot of us do in the telephone books, but the information on the wire that is aimed for the machine consume does not really need it.

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 08:37:21 -0500

URI (and kin) are also meant for human consumption (see the RFC 2396 
quote that Jonathan referred to); there is no separate "wire format". 
Since there is a loss in usability if you remove the separators, I would 
argue that the visual separators should stay. The additional complexity 
is rather modest. In addition, all other IETF phone number 
representations (for VPIM and such) also allow for visual separators.