Subject: Re: [Iptel] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-03.txt

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:51:18 +0100

>While there are many ways to deal with this if you have good dial plan
>processing in the phone, it still seems that there is often a desire to
>leave both of these things encoded in the URI. This requires a way to
>represent dial strings.

I doubt that there will be ever a good dial plan processing in a phone
and it is also not necessary, if you have a defined destinction if a 
string of numbers is a phone number or a dialstring

So I fully agree that there is required a way to reresent dial-strings
and also a way to distingush if a
sip:nnn@domain is a phone numer i.e an imbedded tel:URI or
a dialstring.

sip:nnn@domain;user=phone
sip:nnn@domain;user=dialstring

Richard

________________________________

Von: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]]
Gesendet: Di 21.03.2006 23:53
An: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Francois Audet'
Betreff: Re: [Iptel] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-03.txt

Brian Rosen wrote:
> It deals with reality.  Phones don't (always) do dial plan interpretation.
> We have no way to know if it's been done.  The problem isn't a tel uri, the
> problem is sip:nnn@domain;user=phone.  It's NOT a phone number, it's a dial
> string.

I think Brian and I agree on the issues here, but I want to pick on the
description. In the case of both a tel uri or sip:nnn@domain;user=phone,
it is *supposed* to be a phone number. Neither of these is supposed to
contain a dial string. The problem is that both of these are known to be
used, improperly, to contain dial strings.

> The only way to implement real tel uri's is to force all phones to
> do all dial plan interpretation.  That just isn't going to happen in my
> lifetime I think.

Well, its hard for me to guess on your health issues, but I think there
is a pretty good chance that all voip phones will do this in *my*
lifetime. I do agree that they don't all do it today, and we probably
need to accomodate that.

In my experience a more severe problem is cases when the dialstring
contains both the target address *and* some special function (e.g. star
code) that needs to be taken into account along with the target address.
While there are many ways to deal with this if you have good dial plan
processing in the phone, it still seems that there is often a desire to
leave both of these things encoded in the URI. This requires a way to
represent dial strings.

        Paul

> I don't care about the pauses; I could lose them.  They are also reality,
> however.  It's what the phone has in a speed dial to get to, for example, an
> existing voicemail system.  You can say forklift upgrade to a SIP based VM,
> but that's not reality.
>
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Audet [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Iptel] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-03.txt
>
> I guess I'll be the dissenter here...
>
> I really do not see why we need this draft. I think it will do much more
> harm than good.
>
> It will dissuade people from implementing "real" tel uris.
>
> I have not seen any convincing evidence that using "pauses" in dialling
> is something
> SIP should do.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iptel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iptel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
>

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel