Subject: RE: [Enum] Re: draft-ietf-enum-e164-dns-03.txt

From: "Conley, Pat" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:23:13 -0400

A question for those advocating the "+".

If it is _allowed_ will it actually be _required_ to identify
a E.164 number (as opposed to a private number)?

Pat

Patrick Conley
Director, Business Development
Telecommunications Sector
Network Solutions - Registry
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:43:53 +0200

>a E.164 number (as opposed to a private number)?

Yes. See my latest message with a more complicated example with two 
different rewrite rules for a private number and an E.164 one, where 
two different regular expressions matches.

Also, see the story which Andrew wrote earlier today (or yesterday). 
It is about time people start using E.164 numbers (with leading '+') 
on their buissness cards so one can call them. I.e. explicitly 
stating with a '+' that one talk about a real E.164 number "is a good 
thing"(tm), and ALSO follows what ITU has asked for.

    paf