Subject: [Iptel] Re: Tel URI and 411

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:17:19 EST

In a message dated 12/3/2002 1:44:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> > 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.
>

[fluffy] 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.

[MAP] If we continue to have to deal with every type of dialing scheme in a 
unique fashion, then there is no end to this. I would presume that 411 and 
911 have to be handled exactly the same way in a tel:url. (As well as all the 
other N11 codes). There needs to be one way to deal with any locally dialed 
code that the end user expects to result in routing to somewhere, when that 
code can not be represented as a global (E.164) number and is not a 
"local-number" (within a private dialing plan). This set of codes are ones 
which are always routed based on the location of originator, and often based 
on the service provider (your cell phone example). What about #77 which 
routes to the Maryland Highway Patrol (on a cell phone only), and I think 
something like #ABC which routes to the local TV station but only on Verizon 
mobile phones, and I think people can identify hundreds of others.

All of these non-E164/non local-number cases need to be handled in one way: 
without an E.164 county code "prefix" and without a "context". Both of these 
are meaningless in this case (unless "context" is taken to mean another way 
to provide a way to identify the originator - see previous e-mails).

Mike Pierce
Artel